Commons Sitting of 25 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (Consolidation)*[176]; Freshwater Fisheries Act (1878) Amendment* [177].
First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane)*.
Second Reading—Removal Terms (Scotland) [8]; Lunacy Law Amendment [56]; London City (Parochial Charities) [13], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Maintenance Law Amendment*[110], nominated; Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* [104], nominated.
Committee—Report—Newspapers*[154]. Report—Water Provisional Orders*[146]. Considered as amended—Gas Provisional Orders*[147].
Withdrawn—Tithe (Extraordinary Charge) [29]; Solway Fisheries (Scotland) [141].

MOTION.

  COMMITTEES (ASCENSION DAY)—THE "COUNT-OUT" ON TUESDAY.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that on behalf of the Prime Minister, who was not able to be present, he begged to ask the leave of the House to move, without Notice, a Motion, Notice of which would have been given last night but for the "count-out" at 9 o'clock. The Motion was—
  "That Committees shall not sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two o'clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
  Some time ago, exception was taken to the Committees only sitting two hours on Ascension Day; but when the alteration was made, and they were allowed to sit four hours, opposition ceased, and the Motion had been passed without remark. He trusted, in the circumstances, the House would allow him to make the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Committees shall not sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had no objection to the Motion.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, before this Motion was agreed to, he wished to call attention to the circumstances under which the House was counted out on the previous evening. At 1 minute past 9 o'clock there were 36 Members present—with one exception, independent Liberal Members—to take part in the discussion of a very important Motion relative to the Crown Lands to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh). He thought the Members in that part of the House were entitled to the respect of the whole House, because they represented a larger number of the electors in the United Kingdom than Members sitting in any other part of the Assembly. He was one of those who spent a large part of his time in the House in supporting the Go-
  1264
  vernment; and while he was happy to do so, having unbounded confidence in them, yet he felt that the confidence which had been displayed in that part of the House demanded some return from the Government. He did not ask the Government, as was sometimes done, to keep a House for the Motions of hon. Members on the rare occasions on which they could bring them forward; but, seeing that they were prepared on the previous night to keep a House for themselves, and that if reasonable grace of 5 or 10 minutes had been allowed before the Motion for a "count" was made there would have been 60 Members present, they were entitled to some support from the Government. There were 32 Members of the House who were Members of the Government; and whilst he felt strongly that the illustrious Statesman at the head of the Government devoted only too large a share of his time to attendance in the House, and whilst he regretted to see the right hon. Gentleman so constant in his attendance, yet he was surrounded by younger and stronger men, whose attendance it was not too much to expect on an occasion when 36 of their independent and devoted supporters were present in reference to a subject which, he could say, having given some attention to it for 20 years, involved a saving to the country of, at least, £50,000 a-year. So far as he observed, only one of the 32 Members of the Government was present on the previous evening when the House was counted out; and it would have been becoming on the part of the Government if, at least, four Members had been in their places on such an occasion, so that his hon. Friend might have been enabled to proceed with his Motion.
  MR. MACFARLANEreminded the House, that on Tuesday, April 5, the House was counted out at 7.30; on Tuesday, May 10, at 8.45; on Tuesday, May 17, at 8.45; and on the previous night at 5 minutes past 9. He was on his way to the House, and was going upstairs when he met hon. Members coming down, announcing, with great delight, that there had been a "count-out." He wished to call attention to the deplorable waste of public time in consequence of these proceedings. If the subjects brought forward on private Members' nights were so unimportant that it was not necessary or desirable to keep a

  1265
  House, the Government should appropriate those nights for some useful Business. It was quite evident that at present the nights devoted to private Members were practically wasted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was afraid he did not come within the description—"young and strong Members of Her Majesty's Government." He wished, however, to acknowledge the considerate way in which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had spoken on this subject, especially in his references to the Prime Minister. The whole House would sympathize with the desire to spare the Prime Minister attendance on the House as much as possible. He asked the hon. Member to remember that Tuesday night was rather exceptional, as the House had been occupied till 4 o'clock in the morning, and also with a protracted and somewhat anxious discussion during the earlier part of the day. Then, what took place in the evening was a little bit of sharp practice in the way in which the House was counted out, as the earliest opportunity was taken after the Evening Sitting. If an allowance of five minutes had been given, no doubt, more Members would have been on the Government Benches. The Motion to "count" did not come from that side of the House, nor from the Benches opposite, but from a Gentleman who frequently counted the House. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for Salford did not wish to impute to the Government any desire to prevent discussion on the important matter that was to have been brought forward; and he wished to put forward a plea on behalf of the Government. His hon. Friend said there were 30 odd Members of the Administration who had seats in the House. That left 610 Members who were not Members of the Administration; and he did think it a little hard that those 610 Members did not undertake the function of making and keeping a House on a private Members' night. No doubt, it was the duty of the Minister who was in charge of the particular subject to be discussed to be in attendance. The labours of Members of the Administration were becoming from day to day greater; and he, for one, felt that they were becoming almost intolerable. A Minister began his day's work at 9, and ended about 2 o'clock
  1266
  in the morning. That was 17 out of the 24 hours. He ventured to say, from what he know of the humanity of the House, that hon. Members would not wish to impose such hours of labour on any other class of Her Majesty's subjects; and he was afraid they would require to have a Bill for Her Majesty's Government somewhat like the Workshop and Factory Bill. He was not at all in favour of "counts-out," and this was the first occasion on which he was not present when the House had been counted out this Session; and, considering the exceptional circumstances connected with the "count-out," he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Salford would not think Her Majesty's Government had culpably neglected their duty.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that, as in the case of the policeman in a popular opera, "taking one consideration with another, a Front Bench life is not a happy one." He did not blame the Government for not being present last night; but he wished to point out that unless some assistance was given by the Government in making a House on Tuesdays and Fridays, when there had been Morning Sittings for the transaction of their own Business, private Members would not so willingly allow the Morning Sittings to take place. He hoped this consideration would weigh with the Government in the future.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had risen previously to support the proposal of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the usual arrangement made as to Committees on Ascension Day; but, with respect to the conversation that had taken place upon the "count-out" on the previous night, he wished to say that nobody, of course, could expect that those Members of the Government who were so very hard worked as the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and other Members of the Cabinet, should be always in attendance upon short notice, and at an inconvenient time. They did their work with very great conscientiousness and with very great labour. The House was perfectly sensible of the force of the appeal made by the Home Secretary upon the present occasion. But there were other Members of the Government who were really not in that position, and who might be bound, if desirable, to make a House and keep a House. It was a

  1267
  hardship upon private Members, who had obtained by ballot a day some three or four weeks in advance for bringing forward Motions, that, for want of a proper attendance, they could not bring forward their Motions. He thought there ought to be a clear understanding that when arrangements were made to enable Members of the Government to take a Morning Sitting for Government Business, the Government should make arrangements somehow or other to keep a House in the evening, at any rate for a reasonable time, in order that private Members might bring their Motions forward.
  MR. PUGHsaid, that as he was the Member whose Notice of Motion was first on the Paper last evening, and as the "count-out" prevented him from bringing it on, he might state that the circumstances were exceptional. It was not merely private Members' Motions, but Government Business which was stopped last night. He thought that no part of the Kingdom had greater claims on the attention of the Government than the Principality of Wales; and as the subject of his Motion—Crown lands in Wales—was one of great interest in the Principality, he would ask the Government to take some steps with reference to an inquiry into the question.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was afraid that "counts-out" were not altogether due to Morning Sittings. In a recent "count-out" which had not occurred after a Morning Sitting, Members of the Government, including himself, were in their places. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) brought forward the interesting subject of the National Expenditure; but as soon as that hon. Gentleman had made his speech, his Friends all went away and the House was counted out. That was an instance in which the Government had come down to keep a House. It would, he thought, be rash for the Government to undertake to keep a House on Tuesdays and Fridays. If the "count" had been postponed two minutes last night, he believed there would have been a considerable attendance of hon. Members.
  MR. WOODALLthought the Motion for changing the hours of Select Committees on Ascension Day was objectionable. The mere fact that it was in ac-
  1268
  cordance with the usage of the House was not a sufficient justification for it; and if it were a new proposal, the House would hardly allow it to be adopted. He did not see why Ash Wednesday, Ascension Day, or the Derby Day should be allowed to interfere with the Business of the House. If Members wanted to go to church or to the Derby, let them go; but let the Business of the House go on. He would not allow the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman to be made without protesting against it as being quite unnecessary and causing a waste of time to the parties concerned before the Committees.
  MR. E. COLLINScontended that it was no part of the duty of the Government either to make or to keep a House on private Members' nights. Besides, when the House sat till 4 o'clock in the morning, some consideration was due to the Speaker and the officials of the House. There was nothing unreasonable under the circumstances of the "count-out," because if the subject for discussion was not of sufficient interest to attract 40 Members, the best thing to be done was for the House to adjourn.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped that the House, as an Assembly of Christian Gentlemen, would accede to the Motion made by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHthought that the proposal made by the Secretary of State for War was one on which the sense of the House should be taken. It meant that all Business in the Committees of the House should be suspended for two hours, and they were asked to observe a regulation which outside was not considered at all. There was no other part of the business of the country which was suspended for two hours on account of Ascension Day, and he did not see why the House should be asked to assent to its observance. How many Members of the Committees were likely to be found at church to-morrow morning? He thought no countenance should be given to the waste of public time in such a manner. This Assembly was not altogether composed of members of the Church of England, and members of that Church did a great injustice to regard harshly the opinions of those who did not belong to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had spoken of the waste

  1269
  of time in Ireland by the observance of so many Saints' days; but they had better begin a reform in this House. If there was a minority of Members who regarded this observance in a conscientious light, the House would, no doubt, willingly dispense with their services; but, because a minority was of that feeling, it did not follow that the majority should also be bound by it.
  MR. WARTONbegged to remind the House of the strange admixture of two subjects they were discussing—namely, the Motion respecting Committee sittings on Ascension Day, and the "count-out" of Tuesday night. To the latter he did not so much object, having regard to the fact that the House sat until 4 o'clock in the morning, and, in his opinion, the Government were entitled to an acquittal in regard to it; but they ought to have given an opportunity to the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) to bring on his Motion with respect to the Metropolitan Police. With reference to Ascension Day, he maintained that the wish of the 500 Churchmen and Roman Catholics in that House ought to be respected by the Nonconformist Members.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) intended to test the sense of the House on that Motion. The practice of delaying Public Business on account of Ascension Day was comparatively of recent origin. The time of the Select Committees was valuable, and it ought not to be wasted. Moreover, the witnesses who appeared before them ought not to be kept in London at great expense any longer than was necessary. The Courts of Law did not adjourn on Ascension Day, and he did not see why the Committees should take any notice of the day by adjourning till 2 o'clock.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that it had long been the practice for the Committees of the House not to sit till 2 o'clock on Ascension Day; and there was nothing in the arrangement which should give umbrage to Nonconformists. It occasioned no loss of time whatever, because the Committees met at 2 and sat till 6 o'clock, instead of rising, as on other days, at 4 o'clock. Thus no extra expense or inconvenience was caused to witnesses.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 41: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 213.)

  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. James Stewart, Dr. Cameron, MR. Patrick, Mr. Fraser Mackintosh.)
  [BILL 8.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JAMES STEWARTin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy the time of the House at any great length. The main object of the Bill is to remove the inconvenience which the people of Scotland, and especially the working classes, have experienced in consequence of the diversity which exists throughout the country in the date of entry and removal from dwelling-houses. I may explain to the House that in Scotland the vast majority of leases date from Whitsunday to Whitsunday. At the time of the Reformation, and for some time after, Whitsunday was a movable date, as it still is in England and in many other places; but, in the year 1690, the Scottish Parliament, by their Act, chap. 39, and also by a subsequent Act in 1693, changed the date into a fixed one, and constituted the 15th of May as the legal Whitsunday term, both for payment of rents and for removal from land and heritages. Towards the end of the 16th century attention was directed to the fact that an error existed in the computation of time, so that about that period the calendar was found to be no less than 11 days behind the true time. The Roman Pontiff of the day gave an order in 1580 desiring that the calendar should be changed, so as to remedy this error. That change was adopted by most countries in Europe; but it was not till 1750 that the British Parliament adopted the change by an Act of Geo. II. c. 24, and, consequently, what was called the new style, as opposed to the old style, became a legal and established practice. When this Act became law, it followed that the tenant in Scotland who had entered upon his lease upon the 15th of May, according to the old style, would have been required, according to the new style, to vacate his premises 11 days before his full year's occupancy had expired. But the equity of the case

  1271
  seems to have established the practice by which, although the legal term for the payment of rent continued to be universally accepted as the 15th of May, the term for removal from lands and heritages, in the greater part of Scotland, was accepted as the 26th of May. I think, perhaps there are two causes which may have tended to perpetuate this custom. The one is the inconvenience which both landlord and tenant must have experienced in collecting rents on the same date as, and amidst the confusion and bustle of, the removal. The other cause, I think, may be this—that the interval of 11 days, which would elapse between the 15th of May and the 26th, enabled the landlord, in case rent was not paid, to take legal proceedings under the Law or Hypothee. Had this custom been universal throughout Scotland, there would have been no call for legislation now. But the custom varies in numerous instances throughout the country, and the cause of that variance I am unable to explain. While time term for the payment of rent is accepted universally as the 15th of May, in Edinburgh, for instance, the removal term is the 25th of May; in Glasgow, and throughout the county of Lanark, it is the 28th of May; in the county of Aberdeen it is the 26th of May; and in the town of Aberdeen itself it is the 4th of June. It is manifest that this diversity must occasion immense inconvenience and annoyance to the working classes, and to tradesmen, Who, from the vicissitudes of trade, or from other cause, find it their interest to remove from one district to another. Take, for instance, the case of a working man and his family living in Dumbarton, who find it desirable to remove either to Glasgow or to Greenock, neither of which is more, I think, than eight miles distant. He is obliged to leave his domicile in Dumbarton on the 15th of May, and he does not find his house in Glasgow ready to receive him till the 28th of May, or, in the case of Greenock, till the 26th of May. In the interval he is obliged not only to provide lodging for himself and his family, but also storage for his goods and chattels, at great trouble and expense, and in a manner which must subject him, I think, to grievous annoyance. The object of the Bill is to remedy this evil. The main portion of the Bill is contained in
  1272
  the 3rd clause, which provides that, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, entry to and removal from lands and heritages throughout Scotland should take place at a uniform date. The clause does not apply to existing leases; and although it is not compulsory in its action, still the advantage to both landlord and tenant is so obvious that I have great hopes, if the House passes this Bill into law, that the stipulations of the clause will be readily and universally accepted by both landlords and tenants. By the clause the date of removal is proposed to be the 28th of May, and I have taken that date as being the one which, in my judgment, will cause least disturbance and inconvenience to those portions of the country which have a different date for their removal term. I find that in the county of Lanark, which has the 28th of May as its removal term at present, comprising, as it does, the large population of Glasgow, there is a population of not less than the quarter of the whole of Scotland; and I find also that the few counties in Scotland—I think only eight out of the 32—which have adopted the 15th of May as the removal term comprises a great deal less than a fourth of the population of Scotland; and therefore the remainder, who have adopted the 26th of May, it seems to me will not be put to any great or insufferable inconvenience by the change from the 26th to the 28th of May. For that reason, I have put into the clause the 28th of May as the least inconvenient for the class of people interested. While the great majority of leases, as I have said, begin and terminate at the term of Whitsunday, the, practice of letting for quarterly terms is becoming In Scotland day by day more common. Recognizing this fact, the clause provides that entry to and removal from houses let for quarterly terms shall also be uniform, and I propose that that should be on the same day of each of the months in which the Scottish quarterly terms occur. The 4th clause defines the exact dates at which quarterly payments of rent should fall due; and the reason why I have thought it advisable to have a statutory definition of this is, that disputes seem to have arisen in various parts of the country as to the exact and proper terms of quarterly payments. The 5th

  1273
  clause deals with notice of removal in case of short leases. There being no express law in regard to this, the consequence is that in cases of dispute the Court has decided according to the view which the particular Judge may take—and these decisions have often been at variance one with another—an unsatisfactory state of things, which it is proposed to correct by making the notice of removal a statutory enactment. The 6th clause alters the mode in which these notices may be given. Hitherto the law has required that they should be served by an old-fashioned and cumbrous process—namely, posting the notice upon the door of the parish church. It is proposed that this troublesome and often expensive process should be dispensed with, and that, in future, a simple notice through the post by registered letter, addressed to the party entitled to receive the notice, should be held sufficient. These are the provisions of the Bill, which I feel convinced, from what I know of the feeling of the people of Scotland in the working districts, will, if passed into law, prove a great convenience in regard to their arrangements for accommodation and removal from their houses and dwellings. I trust that the House will agree to the second reading of the Bill, and I beg to move accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. James stewart)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): While, Sir, it has been brought to my notice that some of the countrymen of my hon. Friend and myself have complained that a sufficient share of the time of Parliament has not been given to the Business of Scotland, I think I may congratulate the Scotch Representatives on their good fortune in having obtained the first place in the Orders of the Day on two succeeding Wednesdays for the discussion of Bills relating to that country. The fortune of the ballot-box has brought up as the First Order of to-day a Bill of not very great importance, but representing a useful minor improvement in the law. I am sure that if it had been in the power of my hon. Friend, he would gladly have allowed the precedence which has been accorded to him by lot to have been given to some more im-
  1274
  portant Bill; and I hope it will be understood out-of-doors that the Rules of the House do not admit of the consideration of the relative importance of the questions in determining the priority given to a particular measure of legislation introduced by private Members of Parliament. I hope I may, in connection with this subject, and without transgressing the Rules of Debate, deviate for one instant from the subject to say, with regard to those Scotch questions which have been tabled by the Government, although the exigencies of more important Business have prevented much progress from having been made with them up to this time, it is the full intention of Her Majesty's Government, before the end of the Session, to make progress with these measures, and do the utmost in their power to carry them. Now, with regard to this measure, I fully concur with what has been said by the hon. Member for Greenock as to the inconvenience which has resulted from the circumstance that, while the terms for payment of rent are uniform throughout Scotland, yet the term of removal from lands and houses varies in different localities. With regard to agricultural subjects, this variation may be of no great consequence, but in the case of houses a real inconvenience results to the poorer classes of persons, who migrate in search of work from one town to another, and who find that, after being dispossessed from their residences in one town, they are unable, without waiting for a considerable interval, to get possession of the house they are to occupy in their next place of resort. The Bill of my hon. Friend proceeds on the principle of adopting as the term of removal a day intermediate between the extreme limits which prevail in different parts of the country; and the only criticism which I will venture to make upon it is, that I think it would have been better if the Bill, instead of fixing the 28th of the month in each quarter, had fixed a day representing an equal interval of time subsequent to the legal term for payment of rent. For example, as the Bill stands, there is an interval of 13 days between the term for payment of rent at Whitsunday and the term of removal, while there is an interval of 17 days between the legal term of Martinmas and the term of removal. It will be for the consideration of the

  1275
  House in Committee whether it would not be better to provide that an interval of 14 days or 15 days should not elapse between the terms of payment and removal at each quarterly period with reference to which contracts of tenancy are entered into. I venture to think that this measure may be recommended to the favourable consideration of the House as an improvement in legislation of the same character as those laws by which the various local weights and measures, and other denominations of quantity have been abolished, and a uniform system introduced for the United Kingdom. It is for the convenience of the country generally that matters which are determined by practice throughout the country should be determined as far as possible by uniformity. It is of very little consequence what the date of quarter day is, provided there is uniformity, so that parties who go from one part of the country to another shall not be embarrassed by finding a different form of practice prevailing from what they have been accustomed to. With regard to the 6th clause, I am aware that the present mode of serving notices of removal is antiquated and ineffective; and as the form of serving notices by registered letter has been extensively introduced in many recent Statutes improving legal procedure, I have no doubt it should be accepted in this class of cases. I shall not occupy the time of the House further upon this Bill. Considering that the whole of the preceding Wednesday's Sitting was devoted to a discussion regarding a very interesting subject of Scotch legislation, I think I express the feeling of my Friends from the North, as well as my own, when I say that we do not desire to interpose between the House and the discussion of several important questions relating to the laws, and legislation of England, down in the Order Book in immediate succession to this Bill. I am very glad to be able to give my support to the measure of my hon. Friend, and I shall not further detain the House.
  MR. ORR - EWINGsaid, he quite admitted that great inconvenience was felt in Scotland by the difference in the dates for entry into and removal from houses; but he objected altogether to the way in which the change was proposed to be carried out by the Bill be-
  1276
  fore the House. He thought that Whitsunday and Martinmas should be what they really were—the 15th of May and the 11th of November. Instead of the proposals of the Bill, it would be better that there should be one uniform date in Scotland for entry and removal, and that should be the date on which rents and interest on money were uniformly paid throughout the whole of the country. He could not see why there should be any difference in the date. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. James Stewart) said it was inconvenient in the bustle of removal to pay rent; but they had the experience of some important counties in Scotland where Whitsunday was the date of removal as well as the date of payment of rent. This was the case in Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire, where the custom had existed for a very long time, and no inconvenience was felt. The only inconvenience that was felt was when a person removed to Glasgow or to Greenock. He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he would, in Committee, move that the dates 15th May, and 11th November, and 22nd February, and 2nd August, should remain as at present.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had put his finger on the weak point of the Bill. They had four legal terms in Scotland, the 11th of November, the 15th of May, the 2nd of February, and the 1st of August; and here they were going to have a legal term on the 28th May, 28th November, and 28th February, and so on. Now, the whole course of legislation in Scotland had been to do away with those customary term dates. For instance, if a bargain was made on a particular day, say Whitsunday, it was held to be the 15th May, though one of the parties might have supposed it was the 26th of May, or what was called the old term; and if it were concluded on Martinmas, it was intended to mean the 11th and not the 22nd November. But here the Bill proposed a new term, which would cause great confusion. The reason for the existence of two dates at term time was the Law of Hypothec. House factors and landlords made their rents payable on the earlier dates, so that if the rents were not forthcoming they might seize the furniture before the day of removal. The Law of Hypothec

  1277
  had been abolished as regarded agricultural subjects, and he did not see how it should exist any longer as regarded house property in Scotland. The sooner it was done away with the better, and then all parties would be left to make their agreements as they thought proper. If they wanted to make sure of their rents, let them arrange to collect them a fortnight or so before the term of removal. He was not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he would prefer that there should be no new creation of a new legal term in Scotland. Let them have uniformity and simplicity in their legislation.
  MR. JAMES STEWARTin reply, said, it seemed to him as if the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) sounded very much as if it were to this effect—"Let things remain exactly as they are in Dumbartonshire, no matter what may be the inconvenience with regard to Scotland in general." What the hon. Member suggested would, no doubt, exactly suit what at present existed in Dumbartonshire; but it was the desirability of making the change with as little inconvenience as possible to the population generally, that had led him to adopt the 28th of May as the most convenient term for removal. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) that the Bill would increase the number of terms, he begged to inform him that that was quite a mistake, because by this Bill the terms were absolutely decreased by no less than four in the course of the year. There were no fewer than five removal terms in Scotland existing, and they proposed to reduce that number to one uniform term.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TITHE (EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE) BILL.— [BILL 29.]
  (Mr. Inderwick, Mr. Howard, Sir Edmund Filmer, Mr. Duckham, Mr. Arthur Vivian, Mr. Thorold Royers.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. INDERWICKsaid, that as the Bill which was now before the House dealt only with a portion of the question
  1278
  respecting the abolition of tithe in regard to agriculture in England, it was not his intention to proceed with it. A Committee was sitting upstairs discussing the whole question. He should not ask that the Bill be referred to the Committee, but that the Order should be discharged; and when the Committee had considered the matter he should ask permission to introduce a measure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged."—(Mr. Inderwick.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (WARN INGS TO REMOVE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Sir Alexander Gordon, Mr. M'Logan, Mr. Barclay.)
  [BILL 51.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that last Session, it would be in the recollection of the House, they had a very satisfactory discussion on this Bill. One of the Members of the Government then stated that the provisions of the Bill would be taken into consideration when the Government introduced their Bill for Great Britain with regard to land. This Session, however, the Government obviously could not have the opportunity to do so. He was, however, quite content with the assurance that he last year received from the Government, and he did not, therefore, intend going on with the Bill at present. What he proposed was that it should be postponed till the 20th July.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 20th July.

  LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Dillwyn, Sir George Balfour, Mr. Benjamin T. Williams.)
  [BILL 56.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DILLWYNin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there was no class in the community which demanded more urgently the attention of the Legislature than those unfortunate persons afflicted with insanity. Yet the

  1279
  law seemed to him to treat them in a very cavalier manner. He had hoped that the Government would take this matter up; but, failing that, he had brought in a small Bill to meet pressing abuses. The whole law in this matter, however, required amendment. Our present system had gone upon wrong lines, inasmuch as it treated lunatics as a criminal class rather than as an imbecile class. It treated them with reference to their care rather than their cure, and it was to the cure that the law should be directed. The number of lunatics was rapidly increasing. By the Report of the Commissioners, the number in 1859 was 36,762, in 1865 it was 53,177, and in 1880 it was 71,191. This showed the seriousness of the question. He was strongly impressed with the propriety of entirely separating curable from incurable lunatics, because many patients afflicted with curable lunacy were often rendered incurable by forced association with hopeless idiots and raving maniacs. But this involved a greater change than he felt able to attempt to deal with at present, and in order to remedy the present defects of the law he proposed that a better system of supervision should be instituted over all asylums for the accommodation of lunatics, that better security should be provided for the liberty of the subject than the law at present afforded, and that better accommodation should be provided for the class of lunatics who could afford to pay for it, instead of being required, as at present, to go into ordinary asylums with pauper lunatics, or to private asylums, where the interest of the proprietors to cure patients was not so great as to keep them. With respect to supervision of asylums, the Bill provided for the appointment of a paid Chairman for the Board of Commissioners. This he did on the recommendation of the Earl of Shaftesbury. It was desirable that a person should have his whole time and energy devoted to the subject, and he should be responsible for the performance of his duties by receiving a proper salary for his work. He believed that would give a great additional weight to the Commissioners, and would secure for their proceedings rather more responsibility than now existed for the direct control of the business, which was now practically in the hands of the Secretary. With regard to personal liberty, he ad-
  1280
  mitted there were better securities in pauper asylums than in regard to other classes. In these asylums the inmates must be sent there by some public official, and in this respect they were in a better position than those able to pay. If a person wished to remove a relative, all he had to do was to arrange with some unprincipled keeper of an asylum—give him a sum of money—to ask him to secure a certificate of insanity from two medical men, and then the liberty of that relative was gone. Once inside the asylum, the inmate would find it almost impossible to get out. In the last Parliament he had to appeal to the Speaker with regard to the case of a Member of that House who was Confined, and who, according to Dr. L. Robertson, would become permanently insane if confined and subjected to the treatment he was undergoing. He was talking of facts within the knowledge of the Speaker and others. After some trouble and appeals to the then Home Secretary, this Gentleman was released, and he was put under treatment entirely different from that to which he was subjected in the asylum. He was cured, and for two Sessions afterwards he sat and voted in the House as any other Member would. He had the curiosity to inquire, and he found that this Gentleman, who lived in Scotland, properly exercised all the duties of his position. Well, if these things were done "in the green tree, what would be done in the dry?" If a gentleman of wealth and position was restored to his position and properly treated only at the instance of high officials, such as the Speaker of the House of Commons, what happened when persons who had none to take up their case for them were improperly incarcerated in these private asylums? Surely it was the ditty of the Government at once to intervene to amend the law with respect to such cases as this. He had no doubt such cases were of frequent occurrence—painfully and sadly frequent. He knew he should be pooh-poohed; but the question was one of the highest importance. He proposed by his Bill that, without exception, no one should be detained as a lunatic except upon an order of a justice of the peace. That was the first alteration he would make, and it was a most important one. No person ought to be detained except by order of some public authority.

  1281
  He did not care very much what that authority was; if it were only a police constable it would be better than the present system. Then he would also provide that no person should be incarcerated except at the instance of a near relation or of some solicitor of repute. The case of wandering lunatics was also provided for. There was also provision that due notice should be given before the justice made the order, and that the order must be authorized by two medical officers, one of whom should be the medical officer of the district. Then there was the class of violent lunatics, for whom he would legislate in the same way as was done by the Scotch law, which had a system of emergency certificate which enabled persons who had paroxysms of lunacy to be detained for 24 hours, but for no longer period, except on the order of some competent authority. The discharge of lunatics was also by his Bill placed on a better footing. He proposed they should be discharged on the order of a Judge in Chambers, a stipendiary magistrate, or a County Court Judge, who should order two medical men to visit the lunatic and report on the case; and such Judge, after communicating with the Lunacy Commissioners, might order the lunatic to be liberated within ten days. The third and last point to which he would refer was the question of patients who were able to pay. Many persons were able to pay a moderate sum, and could not afford the private asylums. He knew he should be met by the argument of vested interests on the part of the keepers of private asylums; but he did not think such interests ought to be exceptionally respected. He did not wish to introduce compulsion in the matter; but he proposed that the justices should be enabled to raise money by way of Terminable Annuities for the reception in public asylums of those who could pay. There need be no difficulty, and such a scheme would, in the end, prove remunerative. Certainly the keepers of private asylums made handsome profits. He had nothing to say against those establishments, which, on the whole, were very well conducted. But, unfortunately, it was often no one's interest to procure the discharge of patients, and certainly it was the interest of the proprietor to keep them as long as possible. As things were in the public asylums, there was no distinction
  1282
  between paupers and those who paid, either in class, food, or treatment. He had received many letters on the subject, to one of which he would refer. The letter was written by a gentleman whose wife had become a lunatic, and who could not afford to pay the charges made in the private asylums. The lady had first to go to a workhouse, and was thence transferred to the asylum. The husband paid 9s. 8d. a week for her maintenance. But the lady was treated in all respects as a pauper, and the writer expressed his opinion that the fact of wearing a pauper's dress was alone sufficient to prevent her recovery. With every word of that letter he agreed, and he had made provision in his Bill for cases of that kind. He would refer also to the evidence of the Earl of Shaftesbury in 1859, which fully sustained the views which he had been advocating, especially as regarded the discharge of lunatics. The same noble Earl was examined before the Select Committee which sat in 1877, and stated that, though he should not now in all respects give the evidence he did then, he had seen no reason to change any of the opinions which he had expressed in 1859 as regards the objectionable principle of persons having an interest in the retention of lunatics being intrusted with the care of them. He thought the present system of inspection was also very unsatisfactory and inadequate, and he proposed to deal with that part of the question. He would give an illustration of the unsatisfactory state of things with respect to private asylums. He had been told by a gentleman of the highest position and character, who was well known to most Members of the House, that his wife having become partially insane he had sent her to a private establishment. This gentleman, having heard that his wife was better, and that she would probably improve still more if she returned home, determined to remove her. But he found that all sort of difficulties were placed in his way, and he was much startled to think what facilities he would have had for the wrongful detention of his wife if it had been his interest or his wish to get rid of her in that manner. He had indicated as briefly as he could the evils of the present system, which he thought were effectually dealt with by his Bill. The hon. Member con-

  1283
  cluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. FLOYERsaid, he approved of some of the provisions of the Bill, which could be advantageously amended in Committee. The subject of providing asylums for all classes of lunatics was one of great importance, and it was quite distinct from the question of the management of pauper patients. To provide accommodation for all lunatics above the pauper class would require a large extension of accommodation. The hon. Member for Swansea said that from the profit now made in these private asylums, those who provided those establishments would be recouped for their outlay; but he (Mr. Floyer) feared that, in the first instance, resort would be had to the county rates, and that proposal would hardly find favour with the ratepayers in these depressed times. In the great majority of cases the managers of private asylums were men of high character and position, and were not capable of being influenced by the inducement of high-paying patients to keep them longer than was necessary. Such cases might occur here and there. It was with regard to the admission into asylums of the class just above the pauper class that some changes might produce good results. In his own county, for instance, a step had been taken which had proved advantageous. Between £2,000 and £3,000 had been devoted to the erection in the asylum of 20 or 30 additional cells, which were appropriated to the reception of members of the class referred to, who were admitted at a charge of 10 s. a-week. They were kept upon much the same footing, with regard to clothes and food, as the pauper lunatics, it being undesirable to make distinctions between the two sets of inmates. Another point which he thought should not be lost sight of was the importance of treating lunatics at as early a period as possible—that was to say, as soon as symptoms of insanity manifested themselves. He should be sorry to see any impediment placed in the way of the speedy admission of patients into county asylums; but the provision in the Bill of the hon. Member requiring that the certificate for the admission of a
  1284
  patient should come from the district medical officer would most probably, in many counties, cause such an impediment. The medical officer might live at a great distance from the residence of the patient, and be totally ignorant of the circumstances of his case—nay, he was not required even to see the man whom his certificate would relegate to a madhouse. He also objected to the proposal of the hon. Member with regard to the discharge of patients, for he held that it would be dangerous to give the power of discharging patients to two medical men from London, whose decision would not be subject to appeal. The proposal was defective in this, that it did not meet the difficulty of what was known as lucid intervals. Owing to this imperfection, there might be a great many persons let loose who ought to be under stringent regimen. For his part, he would strongly advocate the construction of asylums in which patients, not paupers, but coming from the class immediately above the pauper class, might be taken care of at a small weekly charge. The wealthy had the private asylums to which to send their insane relatives, and the paupers had the workhouse infirmary, where they were cared for out of the rates; but a man of this class, too poor to pay for the accommodation afforded to the rich, and too wealthy to come upon the rates, was without any such accommodation whatever. He thought they were indebted to the hon. Member for Swansea for bringing forward this Bill, and if it went into Committee he would endeavour to make it a more perfect measure.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to point out that the principles which had been advocated by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) were the principles which had worked thoroughly well under the Scotch law. In Scotland there were a number of Royal Charter asylums, carried on by directors for philanthropic purposes, and they were under the control of medical men of high standing, who were paid salary, and who had no interest but in the cure of the patients. Patients were not admitted without an order from a sheriff. He must say he had a distinct preference for the order of a sheriff over that of a justice. The sheriff was a trained lawyer, whose whole training was against any abuse of the power com-

  1285
  mitted to him, and in favour of a judicial and careful exercise of that power. The machinery in the Bill for the committal and discharge of patients was very much that which existed in Scotland at the present time. It was open to anyone to apply to the sheriff where they thought a patient was wrongfully detained, and the sheriff issued a warrant to make an inspection. If asylums could be got up in the same way in England as in Scotland that would get rid of the financial difficulty. All the suggestions in the Bill of his hon. Friend had been found perfectly compatible with the safe custody and proper treatment of lunatics, and that was a fact which he thought would recommend them to a practical Assembly like the House of Commons.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDassured the hon. Member for Swansea that many who sat on the Opposition side of the House wished the Bill every success. No one could read the Report of the Committee which had considered the subject of lunatic asylums without seeing that some alteration was wanted in the law. The principles of this Bill were such as would commend themselves to those who had studied the question, and the details could be settled in Committee. There were three points of special interest and importance in the Bill. The first object was to do away, as far as possible, with that part of the present system which gave a proprietor of an asylum an interest in keeping the patients under his care. It was undoubtedly the interest of proprietors of asylums to keep patients longer than was necessary; and, although he did not say that this interest had been greatly abused, he thought the temptation ought to be removed. No doubt, if private asylums were bought up by the justices under this Bill, liberal compensation should be secured to the proprietors of such asylums; and, upon the whole, the provisions of the 2nd section would, with some alterations, meet the case. The second object aimed at by the Bill was to secure a proper check upon the admission of a patient. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire commented upon this point, and raised a question as to the inconvenience that would be likely to arise if the relieving officer of the union or parish had to petition. Any practical difficulty, however, on this point could
  1286
  be considered and removed in Committee. The third object was to secure a simple mode of liberation from an asylum. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire, when criticizing this part of the Bill, appeared to think that the liberation order would be granted upon insufficient grounds, and without sufficient examination of the patient. But he had clearly overlooked the provisions of the 13th section, which provided for two separate examinations by two medical men at intervals of seven days, and made it necessary for the Judge or magistrate to communicate with the Commissioners in Lunacy, who must be acquainted with each case, and further provided for the expiration of 10 days from the production of the order before the liberation. As he believed the Bill was calculated to benefit not only the wealthy classes by protecting them against improper admission to, and detention in, asylums, but also the middle classes, who most required protection, he should heartily support it.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that no one who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) could help feeling great sympathy with much that he had uttered; and whatever might be the immediate result of the proposals, he was quite sure the labours of the hon. Gentleman would not be without fruit. At the same time they could not lose sight of the fact that investigations into cases of lunacy must always be subject to the hazard of mischance. The Select Committee on this subject had, however, reported that no case of miscarriage of justice in the committal of alleged lunatic persons had occurred for many years past. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had expressed their approval of the Bill; but they could, he thought, have scarcely examined the proposals which it contained with sufficient attention. If they had done so they would hardly have accepted those proposals as a basis of legislation without some qualification. Many of them appeared to him to be impracticable, and were hardly capable of being transformed into a practical shape in Committee. Hishon. Friend who moved the second reading laid great stress on the proposal requiring the certificate of a magistrate; but under the scheme of the Bill the magistrate would have

  1287
  nothing whatsoever to do except to sign the certificate, and the Proviso requiring the signature of a magistrate made no mention of the apparently necessary condition that the magistrate should see the patient. [Mr. DILLWYN: It would be a record.] Yes; but it would be only the appearance of a public guarantee without the reality, and it might lead to much mischief. At present, a person fraudulently confined in a lunatic asylum had a right of action against the relatives or friends who put him there. Was it intended to remove that liability and responsibility from the shoulders of the relatives or friends and to transfer it to the magistrate? On the whole, he thought the machinery for regulating the admission of patients would rather weaken than strengthen existing guarantees, whilst the machinery for regulating discharge was uncertain in its action and difficult to understand. For instance, it was doubtful whether the author of the Bill meant to give the Commissioners in Lunacy a veto or not over the discharge of a patient. The gradual suppression of private asylums and the enlargement of the public asylums for the admission of paying patients was a subject of the highest interest. He entirely sympathized with his hon. Friend in seeking these two objects; but the propositions contained in the Bill were quite insufficient to bring them about. In the first place, how was this suppression of private asylums to be effected? Was there to be compulsory expropriation? [Mr. DILLWYN: No.] Then the liberty of bargain between the justices and the proprietors of private asylums given by the 1st clause was affected by the extraordinary regulation as to price contained in the 2nd clause; and he was persuaded that the justices would never exercise the power proposed to be given to them under those circumstances. He hoped that the private asylums would, in the course of time, die out. There was no vested interest in them, and the reception of paying patients at county asylums was even now established in some counties—Cornwall, for instance. As to the private lunatic asylums, which it was sought to suppress, they existed, for the most part, in the Metropolis or its vicinity; and if the Bill were to pass—one of the great objects of his hon. Friend being to establish public lunatic
  1288
  asylums throughout the country—a burden would be imposed on the rates of the Metropolitan counties, in order to carry out the great reform suggested in non-Metropolitan counties. He would also point out that there was nothing in the law to prevent lunatic asylums from being enlarged by the addition of private wings in those cases in which the authorities in a county were not unwilling that that should be done. In all the circumstances of the case, he hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and that he would consent to withdraw his Bill, leaving the matter in the hands of the Government, who would be prepared, when there was time at their disposal for the purpose, to lay upon the Table of the House a measure not merely for the amendment of the law but for its consolidation—a Bill which would produce smile of the Amendments aimed at by the hon. Gentleman, but which he would fail to realize under the provisions of his Bill. No doubt the hon. Member thought the Government had been slack in dealing with this matter; but the House knew the difficulty the Government had in dealing with any subject at present. He did not for a moment deny that the law was capable of amendment, and if the hon. Gentleman would only leave it in the hands of the Government, they would draw up a Bill and submit it to an early Session of Parliament. He could not recommend the House to receive the Bill as it stood, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad to find it was admitted on the part of the Government that the Lunacy Law was capable of considerable amendment. For his own part, he had no doubt that in connection with several of the points which had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), amendment was not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Having had considerable experience of the operation of the law in one of the largest lunatic asylums in the country, of which he had been visitor for many years, he was enabled to confirm many of the grievances which the hon. Member had pointed out. In the first place, he did not think there were sufficient safeguards with regard to the admission of lunatics. In the asylum with which he was connected, he

  1289
  was perfectly satisfied that many cases had been admitted which ought not to have been admitted at all. He also thought that the law with regard to the release of lunatics was not satisfactory. He had himself, on many occasions, interfered, and had caused many patients to be discharged who, he was persuaded, ought not to have been detained. The question was a most difficult one, especially as regarded the admission of lunatics, because if a case of lunacy was only treated early enough there was almost a certainty of cure; and it was, therefore, sometimes a charity to put a person in an asylum, although, to an ordinary individual, it might appear very doubtful whether he was a lunatic or not. He concurred, to a great extent, in the views of the hon. Member as to the desirableness of gradually suppressing private asylums. He did not think it desirable that it should be even supposed that persons could be kept in confinement for purposes of private gain. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that many recoveries were accomplished in these private asylums by reason of careful personal superintendence. As regarded the enlargement of asylums, his opinion was that many asylums were far too large. Medical men of eminence in connection with the treatment of lunacy had come to the conclusion that the massing together of people suffering from the disease was a positive evil. If they had 1,000 or 1,200 patients in one asylum, he believed that adequate personal supervision became impossible. He held that the number of patients in one asylum should not exceed 500 or 600. The subject under discussion was one with which he and the late Government had been most anxious to deal. When the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, speaking for the Government, said he approved of all the principles contained in the Bill, he thought one of two courses would have been adopted—either to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then to refer it to a Select Committee; or to bring in a short Bill dealing with the points upon which there was mutual agreement. He quite agreed with the Under Secretary of State that to consolidate the whole law on the subject would be an admirable thing to do. In fact, it was so admirable he was afraid it would not be done, because such an un-
  1290
  dertaking, while not of the first importance, would be one of magnitude, as they would find that any measure with this object would eventually be thrust out and indefinitely postponed in the pressure of other legislation. He therefore ventured to suggest to the Government that they should adopt one of the two courses he had indicated.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not comprehend how any fault could be found with the draft of the Bill, seeing that in drafting it he had had the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was not entitled to make a second speech.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he only wished to state that he could not accept the suggestion of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Courtney) to withdraw the measure, and he must divide the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the subject was one with regard to which, especially after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had just sat down, the House seemed agreed that something should be done; and the only question was how it was to be done. As to the proposal that the Government should introduce a short Bill on the subject, he was sorry to say the Home Office was full of short Bills; and it was absolutely impossible to find five minutes to introduce one. He hoped he might have some success by trying the experiment of sending them to the House of Lords, which was not very much occupied with Business. But he found that when they got there they were strangled. There was such a Bill in the House of Lords on the previous night (Charitable Trusts Acts Amendment Bill). It came to a bad end; aid, therefore, there was no encouragement for the endeavour to get Business transacted there. He was afraid, therefore, that if the Government were to promise to pass a Bill dealing with the Lunacy Laws in the present Session, the promise would be a delusive one. But although the Government might not be able to bring in a Bill on the subject, they had no wish to prevent anyone else from doing so. That the Bill of the hon. Member for Swansea had a good object he did not mean to deny, though it might require a good deal of amendment. As to sending the Bill to a Select

  1291
  Committee, he would point out that the House was already overburdened with Committees; but if his hon. Friend wished to take the second reading of his Bill, with whatever chance of amending and putting it in proper shape he might be able to command, the Government would not object.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  LONDON CITY (PAROCHIAL CHARITIES) BILL.— [BILL 13.]
  (Mr Bryce, Mr. Pell, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Davey.)
  LONDON CITY (PAROCHIAL CHARITIES) BILL.— [BILL 13.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BRYCEin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in order that the Bill should be understood it was necessary to say a few preliminary words about the present state of the City of London and the condition of its Parochial Charities. The City of London was about a square mile in area. It contained within that area 108 civil parishes and 61 ecclesiastical parishes. The population had gone on steadily decreasing for many years. In 1860–01 it was 112,000; in 1871 it was 76,000; in 1881 it was 52,000; and at the same rate of decrease before long it would have gone down to some 10,000 or 15,000 people. The parishes were of two classes. A certain number—about eight—lying towards the outskirts of the ancient City, had in 1871 a population of more than 6,000 persons each. There were 100 parishes in the inner parts of the City, whose total population was in 1871 only about 35,000 altogether; and he thought it might be said that these had ceased to be parishes in the substantial sense of the word. In the outer parishes the population was still reasonably large for each parish; but in many of these inner parishes the population was counted, not by thousands or hundreds, but by tens; one of them only contained 32 inhabitants, and a considerable number under 100. The churches were, therefore, empty, and the parochial organizations had ceased to have any life. Nearly all these parishes had considerable endowments, which had come down from an early period, some of them even from the 14th
    1292
    century, and which had increased in value from precisely the same causes which had led to the decreased population. As the population had sought homes outside the walls of the City, so the value of these endowments, which mainly consisted of land and houses, had risen to an extraordinary height. The City was one of those instances in which Goldsmith's line was exemplified—
    "Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
    The income of the endowments had risen from £67,000 yearly in 1865 to £105,000 in 1877; but even this vast sum did not represent the full value, because in many cases they had been badly managed, not corruptly but indolently or incompetently managed, and under good management the income might be doubled, and in 10 years the Parochial Charities might enjoy a revenue of more than £200,000 a-year. There was thus, taking the income at £105,000 and the population at 52,000, a sum of £2 per head per annum of Charity Funds for every resident in the City, or in the 100 inner parishes, whose population was under 25,000, £4 per head. In that state of affairs it might be imagined that the City would be full of philanthropic institutions, and that the rate of pauperism would be extremely low. But the facts showed that the state of the City of London compared not only unfavourably, but most unfavourably, with every other part of the Metropolis as to pauperism. The average for the whole of the Metropolis of paupers to population was 1 in 37; in the City it was 1 in 16. The expenditure on outdoor relief in the whole of the Metropolis was 1s. 2¼d. per head; in the City it was 4s. 4d. per head, so that, so far as the poor were concerned, it would be better for them if this £105,000 yearly income were thrown over the Thames Embankment. How had this state of affairs arisen? This Charity money was administered and distributed by a very large number of independent bodies of trustees, by churchwardens, and by Vestries. Very nearly half of the total income was spent in what was called the ecclesiastical purposes. Such purposes included various matters connected with the repairs of the churches—the re-fitting and ornamenting them, warming them, and so forth. There were 61 churches for a population of

    1293
    52,000 people, whereas 10 churches would be amply sufficient for the spiritual requirements of this population. Thus it would surprise no one that most of the churches were empty, and that the greater part of the money spent by the churchwardens was absolutely wasted. A good deal of these Church Charities went in various endowments for lectureships and sermons. There was a case of an endowment of £50 a-year for two services daily. Now, however, on Wednesdays and Fridays, the minister and clerk made their appearance at the hour of morning prayer, and having waited a due period of time, and finding that no person appeared, they went away. Another endowment was for a sermon to be preached in acknowledgment of the deliverance of England from the Spanish Armada; another for a sermon of thanksgiving for deliverance from the Gunpowder Plot. Both these sermons were still delivered. A payment was made to the clergyman for delivering them, and to the sexton for going to hear them; but he could not find that any other person had ever funned part of the congregation. He did not attribute any blame to the clergy, as they had done their best in the difficult circumstances in which they were placed; it was the state of the law which was to blame. A considerable part, estimated at £10,000 a-year, of these charity revenues was distributed in doles—petty gifts of bread, coals, blankets, and so forth. All the evidence showed that such doles, wherever distributed, were of the greatest imaginable evil to the community. It was as much a truth of economic science that doles tended to demoralize and pauperize their recipients as it was a truth of physical science that the breathing of sewer gas tended to produce disease. In the City people came sometimes to the morning services of some churches in order to get bread, and one clergyman had actually excused the system on the ground that it brought people to church who otherwise would not attend. In one of the parishes a churchwarden wanted to ascertain how the coal tickets distributed as doles went. He took the addresses of the people who applied, and having found that out of the applicants there were no less than 40 or 50 not known at the addresses which they gave, he came to the opinion that these people belonged to a class which
    1294
    seemed to be a well-known part of the population of the City—the class called "coal-hunters," who made it their business to get these tickets and afterwards sell them at a reduction to retailers of coals. In a large number of the parishes in which bread was distributed it was received by persons with regard to whose means of subsistence no inquiry was made, and many of these persons were actually at the time receiving outdoor relief from the Unions. Another mode in which the money was supposed to be expended was in the payment of apprenticeship fees; but as the custom of apprenticing had become almost obsolete in the City, more than £3,000 a-year was accumulating because youths could not be found to come and take an apprenticeship. A good deal was spent in the payment of poor rates, which was a gross misapplication of Charity Funds. There was a parish in Lombard Street which contributed out of its Charities £700 a-year to the poor rate, a charge which would otherwise be paid by the great banking-houses which were situated there. This was a pleasing instance of charity to the rich. There were two cases in which parishes spent £1,300 annually in the payment of poor rates out of such funds, and in another case the parish had the effrontery to borrow money for the repairs of the church, while, at the same time, they were spending their charity money in paying poor rates. A very large sum was spent in eating and drinking. Items for dining and refreshments at Vestry meetings and dinners at Greenwich and Richmond were of frequent occurrence. One parish expended £83 on a single Greenwich dinner. In another case £113 was thus spent on various entertainments, this being an instance where the parish contained only two inhabited houses, and in addition to expending this sum £60 was taken out of the Charity Funds, with which a service of plate was purchased, and presented to one of the churchwardens. He recollected the case of a parish in which there were two endowments in one parish, both originally of small amount. One was £1 6s. 8d. to be paid to some poor deserving scholar at Oxford or Cambridge University. That small sum of £1 6s. 8d. was still paid, and it was all that was given to the poor scholar. But in the other case 5s. was left to provide what

    1295
    the founder called a "love feast," at which parishioners who had quarrelled with one another should be reconciled on Maundy Thursday. That "love feast" was still given; but it was carried out in a manner more ample and generous than the simple Founder contemplated. From £60 to £70 was now annually spent on giving this feast at Richmond, and the persons invited were the rich people of the parishes, and among them were the secretaries of 12 public Companies who had offices or warehouses in the parish. Then there were salaries paid out of those charitable foundations to Vestry clerks, sextons, organists, organ-tuners, pew-openers, and a swarm of other officials connected with these parishes. Lastly, there were many miscellaneous Charities, such as the gift made for the benefit of poor fishmongers in Old Fish Street—there being no poor fishmongers there now; gifts of money for the ringing of church bells—a frequent kind of bequest; a gift for the ransom of Christians captured by the Barbary pirates, and a bequest for purchasing faggots for the burning of heretics. Most of these gifts were in house property. They were continually accumulating, and being spent in ways sometimes not in accordance with the wishes of the Founders, while in other cases it was impossible now to carry out those wishes. He believed two of the City parishes appeared to have taken money out of their Charity income to pay for the prosecution of the Rev. Pelham Dale. Perhaps they looked on this as what the lawyers called a cyprè application of the funds bequeathed for the combustion of heretics. There had been comparatively few cases in which the trustees had sought to benefit themselves out of these funds; and it was rather the state of the law than the trustees, whose fault had been apathy, not malversation, that must be blamed. Three remedies were needed to set right this extraordinary and anomalous state of affairs. In the first place, the money ought to be made to follow the people, and taken from the City, where it was no longer useful, to be poured forth over the whole Metropolis. A certain portion might properly be allowed to remain to carry on any work which it beneficially could in some of the City parishes; but by far the larger part would find its rightful application in serving the
    1296
    4,000,000 of Greater London. In the second place, a change in the law was requisite in order to alter the destination of the funds, as many of the original purposes could no longer be, and others ought no longer to be, carried out. Thirdly, it was desirable that the numerous bodies of trustees, Vestries, and churchwardens, who had the management of these funds, should be consolidated, because so long as they acted independently there must necessarily be great and wanton waste. The object of the present Bill was to give effect to these remedies. The Bill appointed three paid Commissioners to inquire into the Charity property, directing them to pay due regard to vested interests, so that compensation might be provided where necessary. They were also to be empowered to prepare schemes for the administration of the Charities. As regarded the larger parishes, all the charitable funds there were to continue to be applied within the limits of those parishes. A distinction was drawn between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical funds, and it was provided that all such ecclesiastical purposes seemed still beneficial within the limits of the City were still to have the encouragement of the Charity Funds, the balance to be applied, under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to ecclesiastical purposes throughout the Metropolis. The balance of the non-ecclesiastical funds—after providing for such existing objects as were still substantially beneficial—was to be applied to various admittedly useful purposes in the Metropolis, such as the promotion and improvement of the education of the poorer inhabitants, but not so as to relieve the education rates—for example, by founding exhibitions by which promising boys and girls might be furthered in their career, or by technical instruction; the establishment and maintenance of Libraries, Museums, Art Collections, open spaces and recreation grounds, and provident institutions for the benefit of the poorer classes. It had also been suggested that something might be done with regard to artizans' dwellings; and generally it was proposed to leave the Commissioners a pretty wide discretion as to the inclusion of other purposes than those expressly named. The machinery provided for the purpose of carrying out these objects would be

    1297
    somewhat similar to that under the Endowed Schools Acts. It would be objected, no doubt, that the Bill interfered too much with the directions of "Founders;" but the question really narrowed itself to this—whether the intentions and regulations of the Founders were to be observed in the letter or in the spirit. Could any worse honour be paid to a Founder than to restrict the application of his charity where it had once been needed, but was now superfluous or mischievous? Some of the trustees seemed to suppose that they possessed a vested right and interest to administer charitable funds, just as if those funds were their own individual property; but he would remind them that the Charities did not exist for the administrators, but the administrators for the Charities. A trustee had no private right of property; he was really a public officer, placed there to manage property from which he was not allowed to derive any profit. He and those who had brought in this Bill with him had hoped that the trustees, feeling the indefensible position they occupied, would have regarded them as friends, and have met them half-way; but the only suggestion they had made was that the initiative in any reform should be taken by the trustees. He thought they had waited long enough already for the initiative of the trustees. These were not the days when even the Corporation of London, great as it was, could afford to set itself against reasonable proposals of reform; and he therefore hoped that the spokesmen of the Corporation in that House would not persist in the opposition they threatened. If the Bill were read a second time, he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee, in order that they might fairly consider the whole subject. The object which he and those with whom he was acting had in view was to benefit 5,000,000 people by opening to them new avenues to knowledge and a new range of pure and wholesome pleasures. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity of applying some remedy to the undoubted evils he had referred to; but
    1298
    declined to accept the Bill as the best means of attaining the object in view. It was, for instance, a very questionable step to appoint paid Commissioners, who, with the staff of secretaries and clerks, would run away with from £7,000 to £10,000 a-year, when the various matters in question might be left to the already existing Charity Commissioners to deal with. Besides, steps had already been taken by the trustees in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, though their progress was not, perhaps, so rapid as the hon. Member would wish. Lastly, it was to be remarked that the Bill consisted of no fewer than 44 clauses, on which a great many Amendments might be moved, so that if proceeded with it would certainly take up a great deal of valuable time. The trustees were willing to meet the hon. Member who introduced the Bill in a liberal spirit, and really this measure was not necessary. For these reasons he thought it advisable to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he rose on the part of the Government to give a most cordial support to the second reading of the Bill. A more conclusive case had never been shown than that which had been made out by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he did not find that any answer had been made to it by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Member admitted the evil, and said that the only question was as to the mode of remedying it. But his hon. Friend had proposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee; and, therefore, all the objection that had been taken to it as regarded the time and method of proceeding with it was removed. The proposal of the hon. Member opposite was that the subject should be dealt with by the Charity Commissioners. Considering the quarter from which the suggestion came, he was a little surprised. He had himself applied to the Charity Commissioners to know whether they could deal with those gross and scandalous abuses in some cases, and in many cases

    1299
    of lamentable misapplication of money, for reasons for which no one was to blame; but they said they could not deal with them because there were certain clauses in the Act which would prevent their doing so. As soon as he became aware of the difficulties in the way he made it his business. with the assistance of the Charity Commissioners, to prepare a Bill which would enable them to perform the duties for which they were constituted by Parliament. What did the Corporation of London do?—that body with which the hon. Member—opposite was connected. They set to work to canvass every town in the country to prevent the Charity Commissioners having the power to better govern and dispense the Charities of London. Piles of petitions were presented against the proposal. Then came down the worthy Alderman and said—"Let us throw out the Bill, and let its hand it over to the Charity Commissioners"—a body which the Corporation of London care should not deal with the subject. He ventured to point out to the worthy Alderman that it was not advantageous to the Corporation of London that they should always take the lead in endeavouring to defeat any proposal for the reform of abuses in connection with the Charities of London. Very often, perhaps from no evil motive, but from negligence and carelessness, these funds actually disappeared from the hands of trustees, yet the Corporation resisted and defeated the proposal to appoint a public body to control their administration. He would have thought that there could not possibly have been a proposal which would have more commended itself to every reasonable man. He had, therefore, been obliged to abandon the hope that the Charity Commission could do this work, and he regretted that the Corporation of London had been so successful in their endeavours to limit the action of that body not only in London, but throughout the country. With regard to this particular question of Charities, however, there was no doubt that even if the Charity Commissioners did possess the necessary powers they would be a long time, with the other multifarious duties they had in hand, in dealing with it, and the appointment of a separate Commission was accordingly recommended. The Commissioners under this Bill would only
    1300
    be appointed temporarily, in order to investigate, in the first instance, the character of the property which was to be dealt with. This might be done in a year or two, and, consequently, the expense would be very slight. The permanent body to be afterwards constituted would, he understood, be an unpaid body, and therefore the objection on the ground of expense could not be sustained. The question the House had to decide was whether these abuses were to go on, and whether they would allow money intended to benefit the public to be dissipated altogether, or to be diverted for purposes of no use whatever. He was sorry that the Government were unable, from causes which the House well understood, to take up this subject themselves; but it was some consolation for them to know that it was in such competent hands. Everything the Government could do to further the Bill would be at the disposal of his hon. Friend and of the other Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill.
    MR. PELLsaid, the Charity Commissioners could not adequately perform the work. They had not the requisite staff; and he doubted whether they would have sufficient time to bestow on this important and distinct matter. A more drastic reform was required than they could expect to have at the hands of the Charity Commissioners. He would say to many of his hon. Friends on that side of the House—"Have a care how you resist proposals for reform, as you may make as grievous a mistake as you did 40 years ago on the question of Protection, and may damage yourselves permanently." This Bill was a very moderate one, and he was glad to say that it would receive the support of many Conservatives.
    MR. CUBITTsaid, that, as a Member of the late Royal Commission, he regretted the Government had not dealt with this question; but, failing them, he desired to express his thanks to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for having introduced this measure. In supporting the second reading, however, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to approve every proposal embodied in the measure. As regarded the ecclesiastical portion of the Bill, he thought that if more of the benefices in the City were amalgamated

    1301
    a large amount of ecclesiastical funds might be diverted to the benefit of other parts of the Metropolis. He also thought that some advantage would be derived from making the ecclesiastical parishes and the civil parishes equal in number. At present there were in the City 60 of the former, while there were 107 of the latter; and in all these the whole parochial machinery, including a paid Vestry clerk, was kept up with great unnecessary expense. He did not approve of the proposal as regarded the School Board Members of the Commission, nor the prominence given to education in the purposes to which the surplus funds should be applied. There were many objects to which money could be applied as well as education, such as the preservation of open spaces, and in which, when once it was spent, it would be spent for ever, and would thus save the expense of administration.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he was opposed to centralization, and was surprised at hon. Gentlemen opposite introducing a measure which would take the administration of these funds out of the hands of the people and place it in the hands of the Government. The Government had quite difficulties enough to settle already, and quite enough to do. He regretted these constant attacks which were made upon the Corporation of the City of London—a Corporation which had always been liberal in the past, and had done its best for the general good. The Corporation of London had nothing whatever to do with the Parochial Charities. When these parochial trusts were in the hands of the Vestries the amounts to be distributed wore often so small that little good could be done with them; but if the scheme which was being promoted for consolidating the whole of the Charities were carried out about £100,000 a-year would be available for charitable objects, and with such a sum something great and useful might then be done. The proper way in which these trusts should be administered was by unpaid Commissioners, and by leaving them in the hands of the people. The power of the Charity Commissioners was immense; and he hoped that, whatever might be their feeling as regarded the Corporation of London, hon. Members would persist in their opposition to this Bill.
    MR. T. COLLINSsaid, he did not desire to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but thought that when it was sent to a Select Committee it would have to be very considerably altered. The principle of the measure, if adopted, would affect not only the City of London, but different parts of the country. So far as the Bill extended the area of the Charities, it was a wise one; but he thought that the Charities should be ranged under the heads of Ecclesiastical Charities, Educational Charities, and Charities for bodily wants. He had always held that money left for bodily wants ought to be applied to that purpose, and no other. He thought, moreover, that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be represented on the Board, and have a voice in the management of these Charities.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should oppose the Bill. The Government had prevented a day Census of the City from being taken, and that question was intimately connected with this one, for there could be no doubt that when the wealthier people in the City left for their homes at night, the residue was mainly made up of comparatively poor people. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was going to reply to observations that had been made on the Bill. The philosophical Radical objected to all charity whatever; but the time might come when other philosophical Radicals might arise who would have a different set of ideas on the question. ["Divide"]
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

    SOLWAY FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    (Mr. Ernest Noel, Mr. J. Maxwell-Heron, Mr. Anderson.)
    [BILL 141.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ERNEST NOELin moving that the Order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged, said, the Solway Fisheries Act was a private one, but had been amended once or twice by a Public Act; and he had, therefore, thought it might be amended again by a Public Act; but the Speaker had informed him that this could not be done by a Bill introduced by a private Member. He therefore begged to express

    1303
    the hope that the Government would take this question into their consideration, and remove what was a real grievance in that part of the country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged."—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

    MOTIONS.

      PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill to consolidate the Law of Parliamentary Election, and Corrupt Practices therein, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE and Sir ALEXANDER GORDON.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 176.]

      FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Bill to amend "The Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878," ordered to be brought in by Mr. STUART-WORTLEY and Mr. DODDS.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 177.]

      MAINTENANCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
      Select Committee nominated on the Maintenance Law Amendment Bill:—Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. FIRTH, Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE, Mr. MELDON, Mr. PLUNKET, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Mr. WHITLEY, and Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: Three to be the quorum.

      BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
      Select Committee nominated on the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Bill:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Mr. DAVID MAC IVER, Mr. PATRICK MARTIN, Mr. MONK, Mr. W. N. NICHOLSON, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. PICKERING PHIPPS, Mr, SLAGG, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. BENJAMIN T. WILLIAMS, Mr. WHITLEY, and Mr. STUART-WORTLEY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum.
      House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.