Commons Sitting of 24 March 1886

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* [132]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) [74]; Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion) [111], debate adjourned; Drowned Persons (Discovery and Interment) [123].
Referred to Select Committee — Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Amendment [61]; Tithe Rent-Charge Amendment [65]; Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption [63], referred to Select Committee on Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Amendment [61].
Considered as amended — Consolidated Fund (No. 2).*
Third Reading—Lunacy (Vacating of Seats)* [85], and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 61.]
  (Mr. Norton, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Pomfret.)
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 61.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. NORTON, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that hon. Members would be aware that a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1881 to consider the best means of dealing with this complicated and difficult question. That Committee, which was presided over by the former Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), reported in favour of the abolition of these charges, and the hon. and learned Member, for several years in succession, brought forward a Bill for that purpose, but was unable to get it passed. A great amount of interest had since gathered round the question; and all who were acquainted with the state of feeling in the counties of Kent and Sussex especially, would agree with him that the time had arrived when, in the interests of the public generally, as well as of all immediately concerned, it was absolutely necessary that the question should be settled; and, in saying that, he wished to disclaim emphatically any intention to make it a Party question in any form whatever.

    1729
    The object of his Bill was, first, to abolish for the future the extraordinary tithe, and to commute the present payment by a fixed rent-charge; and, secondly, to make the charge payable by the owner of the land, and not by the tenant, as heretofore. This was essentially a landlord's question; for he believed it was undoubtedly the case that the owners of property bought that property subject to this charge upon it. He considered that the proposals in the Bill would furnish a practical way of dealing with the question, and would get rid of the friction which now largely existed between the tenant farmers and landlords. He thought that the parsons were, in existing circumstances, placed in a most unfortunate position. They were really as powerless as a flock of sheep, and they were not in a position to enforce their claims, for fear of losing that influence for good which he thought all would agree it was necessary that they should possess. The late Lord John Russell had, he believed, the intention to settle the question once for all; but, in consequence of the representations of hop growers themselves, when the Tithe Redemption Bill was before the House, Mr. Thomas Hodges, at that time a Member for Kent, obtained on behalf of the hop and fruit growers the exemption of hop, fruit, and vegetable grounds from its operations. It was now thought desirable that the clauses in that Act referring to hops should be repealed. The charge on hops was at present a very unequal one, varying from 2s. to 22 s. an acre in Kent, and rising as high as 30 s. an acre in the district of Farnham, in Surrey; and while there was a charge of 6s. an acre on fruit gardens in one parish, there was no charge at all of the kind in adjoining parishes. It was proposed in this Bill to go back to the principle on which Lord John Russell had intended to deal with this question in 1836, and to make the extraordinary tithe a higher permanent rent-charge upon property, and so to make it absolutely a landlord's question. It was proposed to put upon the Land Commissioners, who were the old Tithe Commissioners—the highest authorities on the subject — the responsibility of dealing with this important question, and to give them the fullest power of dealing with it. That was the sole point at issue between the hon. Member for South St.
    1730
    Pancras (Mr. Bolton), who had a Bill on the Paper dealing with the same question, and himself. He (Mr. Norton) proposed that the Land Commissioners should have power to take into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of farms, such as the possible continuance or discontinuance of the cultivation of hops. It was thought that, in a matter of this importance, it was absolutely necessary that the hands of the Commissioners should not be tied too closely, and therefore he had come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the matter was to give the Commissioners the power he had referred to. Having ascertained what the capital value of the properly was, it was proposed to apportion what should be paid over the whole farm rather than take any particular garden under hops, calculating the interest at 4 per cent upon the capital. It was thought that it would be fairer to apportion it over the whole farm than to fix it upon a particular hop or fruit garden, at that time under cultivation, for the reason that it would make great inequality in the letting value of different parts of the farm, and that it would introduce still greater difficulties if any part of the farm had to be sold. For the payment it was generally admitted that the landlords were primarily responsible. When the whole tithe of Ireland was commuted into a land tax, it was made absolutely a landlord's payment. It would get rid of many difficulties if the House would consent to refer that point to a Select Committee. As to the expense of carrying out the proposal, he believed the Land Commissioners would look upon it as part of their statutory duty to supervise the whole of the work, without making any extra charge as far as themselves were concerned; but where special difficulties surrounded a case, and they would have to call in persons to assist them, a special charge would be allowed, according to a scale of fees which it was proposed to lay down. He not only represented the Division of Kent, but he resided in the parish, in which the largest portion of hops was grown, and where extraordinary tithe came to a very large sum in addition to the ordinary. Therefore, he spoke with some knowledge of the subject. He could assure the House there was a very strong feeling on the part of everyone concerned—landlords,

    1731
    tenants, and clergy, to get this question settled once for all. He asked the House to give him, and the whole of the Members for Kent who supported the Bill, their assistance in carrying the second reading, and he believed Her Majesty's Government would support them by agreeing to refer that and other Bills relating to the same subject to a Select Committee. He thanked the House for the attention with which it had heard him, and he begged now to move the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN, in seconding the Motion, said, that all who were interested in the question under notice had come to the conclusion that the time for a final settlement of the question had arrived, and that the only satisfactory way in which it could be effected was by the abolition of extraordinary tithe for the future. The only point, therefore, and the principal one, which remained for consideration was that of compensation to the existing owners; and he could not help thinking that the solution of the difficulty would be much better found in a Select Committee composed of Members thoroughly acquainted with the subject, than by the whole body of the House itself. There were other Bills before the House on the same subject—namely, the Tithe Rent-Charge Amendment Bill, and the Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption Bill; but he believed there were only slight differences between them all, and they could easily be dealt with by the same Select Committee. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind that this extraordinary tithe was not a new and vexatious demand made by the tithe-owners on the tithe-payers; but it was founded in 1836, upon a request made by the tithe-payers themselves, that their holdings should be exempted from the Tithe Redemption Act of that year. His second point was, that this extraordinary tithe did not originally impose such an impediment upon agriculture, or create such a grievance, as it was customary to represent; but the cultivation of hops was very different now to what it was then. He was a hop grower and a fruit grower, had lived in the midst of hop and fruit gardens all his days, and he had never met a single farmer who had been deterred from growing hops or planting fruit trees on account of this
    1732
    extraordinary tithe. He believed there was a large farmer who did grub up a considerable quantity of hops, but that was to spite the tithe-owner. But if it were not a grievance, why should its removal be advocated? There were three reasons why it should be done. The first was the reason given by the President of the Local Government Board last night, when dealing with the question of dividing the rates between landlord and tenant—namely, with a view to conciliation by repressing a grievance which the tenant fancied he laboured under. The second reason was because, of late, there had been most unfortunate occurrences attending the collection of this extraordinary tithe, of which advantage had been taken for making unfair attacks on the Church and the clergy, for only trying, as Englishmen, by legitimate means to recover what they considered to be their own. And now, when the ownership of all kinds of property was in a precarious condition — he was not sure that it might not soon, indeed, be considered a criminal offence—he thought in the case of any sort of property, where there was the least shadow of a grievance, it was their duty, if possible, to remove it. There was one more reason why the question should be dealt with. Formerly, if a farmer got one good year out of three, he was able not only to recoup himself, but to have a surplus with a considerable profit. That, however, he was afraid was not the case now. Whatever might be the crop of the future, he thought the days of high or remunerative prices had absolutely gone by. If the hop grower, in addition to being exposed to the ravages of insects, bad weather, and unfair competition with the foreigner, who was protected, was to be subjected to extraordinary tithe also, then he thought it was clear that he had a grievance, and that the time had come when, if possible, that grievance should be removed; and he hoped that the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee would result in a fair and equitable settlement.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Norton.)
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that the Seconder of the Motion had in reality made a speech against the Bill,

    1733
    because a great portion of his argument was directed to show that there was not that grievance which the growers of hops said there was. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the grievance was felt to be a substantial one, not only by the hop growers of Kent and Sussex, but also by the inhabitants of towns upon whom the charge ultimately fell. His constituents in St. Pancras were interested in having a supply of good cheap fruit and vegerables, as well as having their beer manufactured of the best materials, and they were anxious that the question should be dealt with, not only in the interest of fruit and hop growers and market gardeners, but in their own interest as consumers. He begged to say that the extraordinary tithe was not imposed, as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had alleged, at the instance of the payers; it was imposed upon the landowners and clergy in 1836, as a compromise, by Lord John Russell to enable him to get over a difficulty. On that occasion Mr. Hume contended that there should be no tithe whatever placed upon hops, fruits, or vegetables, as he could not look upon hop grounds, market gardens, and orchards otherwise than in the light of manufactories — small pieces of land, upon which much capital was spent to make them productive. Lord John Russell said the tithes upon valuable crops, such as hops, fruit, and vegetables, could not be allowed to enter into an average commutation. Mr. Hume divided the House; but as it then consisted largely of Representatives of the landed interest in alliance with the clergy, the compromise was enforced, the result of which was, that tithe on hops, fruit, and vegetables was separated from the ordinary tithe; but as part of the compromise there was this condition—that the tithe should attach to the crop, and that when the particular cultivation ceased the extraordinary tithe should cease to be payable. Therefore, this was a tax imposed upon the growers of hops, fruit, and vegetables in 1836, and the House was at liberty to relieve them upon such terms as Parliament might think just and reasonable under the circumstances. In the aggregate, the impost amounted to something like £100,000 a-year, and was a burden which rested upon those particu-
    1734
    lar industries. The so-called compromise of 1836 had worked most unsatisfactorily, and it had been most injurious to the growers and to the public, as it was a tax upon industry. It handicapped the native growers in favour of the foreign producers, discouraged the cultivation of the soil, and prevented the employment of a large quantity of labour; and he would remind hon. Members that, in connection with the question, there was no kind of cultivation which employed a larger number of persons or required a greater amount of capital. The injustice of the tax was generally admitted. He contended that it was altogether unfair to compensate in respect of potential value. He would deal with each parcel of land under the special cultivation; and he would suggest that the hon. Member (Mr. Norton) should go further than his Bill suggested, and deal with land parcel by parcel. It should be borne in mind that the grower had a right to determine the cultivation; and, when he did so, the tax ceased, and this circumstance should be considered in the calculation of any compensation. The difference between the hon. Member and himself upon the question was this—that he, who was now addressing the House, proposed to take the tithe as it was, a terminable rent-charge, determinable at the will of the payer, and give the owner the fair market value for it. The hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, proposed to lay down by the Bill a larger scheme of compensation, which would give the tithe-owner much more substantial compensation than he could reasonably be entitled to expect. If the Bill of the hon. Gentleman were pressed to a second reading, with a view to legislation on those lines, it would be his duty to oppose it; but as the hon. Gentleman had intimated his willingness to entertain a suggestion which it was believed would come from the Treasury Bench, that this and the other Bills should go to a Select Committee, he (Mr. Bolton), on his part, was not disposed to oppose the second reading. The question was one of very great difficulty; but, unless it could be dealt with in some drastic way, dissatisfaction would still be felt and the agitation would continue. That agitation was one which was exciting the greatest possible friction in large parts of England, and riots had occurred, men had been sent to

    1735
    prison, and there was a general resistance throughout Kent and Sussex to the payment of what people considered to be an unfair burden. If there was further delay, the existing ill-feeling would be increased; and he was desirous, in the interests of the clergy as well as of the landowners, and more especially of the growers and the public at large, that the question should be settled in a reasonable way. All they wanted was fair dealing, and they were not opposed to any reasonable compensation which could be shown to be justly due for actual loss. He would assent to the proposal that all the Bills should be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. GATHORNE - HARDYsaid, it could not, of course, be expected that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bolton) would agree with the Bill before the House in all its particulars; but at all events, he had admitted that this was a matter of extreme difficulty which might properly be investigated by a Select Committee, and one which it would be really impossible for a body like the whole House of Commons to decide on a reasonable basis. There was little to complain of in the speech of the hon. Member, except, perhaps, his history with regard to the first imposition of extraordinary tithe, as to which he (Mr. Gathorne - Hardy) had heard a very different account, one from which he contended that that extraordinary tithe-charge was the result of the action of Mr. Thomas Hodges, as had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), on behalf of the hop and fruit growers in 1836. But, however that might be, he was not disposed to deny that the hon. Member had done much to bring this question before the public. He could only say that he lived in a parish in Kent where the charge did not exist; but he did not know that agriculture there was more prosperous, because the farmers had not the tithe to pay. When a grievance was raised, which turned out to be a real one, he was quite ready to give his assistance, in order, if possible, to put a stop to such grievance, and he would support the present Bill, because it would put an end to the grievance in question, upon a fair basis to all the parties concerned. The Bill would give a substantial concession to the hop growers, and put an end to relations
    1736
    between the clergy and the people which, he believed, had done more to injure the spiritual influence of the clergy throughout the country than any other question likely to arise. Therefore, he had the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he had some doubt as to the character of the tax. The Bill had been discussed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as if it were simply a matter between the clergy and the cultivator of the soil. He (Mr. Illingworth) desired to obtain a hearing for another view, which he believed to be more sound—that the extraordinary tithe was a national tax, imposed for ecclesiastical purposes in this country, and that when they proposed to deal with it, that view must be persistently maintained in the House of Commons. Whether the tax were paid by the tenant directly to the clergyman, or to any capitalist who might have bought up the tithe, or whether it was paid through the landlord, he compensating himself by an increase of rent, they were left in entirely the same position. It must not, therefore, be forgotten that when it was proposed to relieve any class of the community from any tithe, extraordinary or ordinary, they were, in fact, abandoning a tax imposed by the State for ecclesiastical purposes. ["No, no!"] The House might look at the matter from many points of view. If it could be imagined that this was a case between the clergy, as private individuals, and the growers of market produce, the House would soon get rid of the whole thing. They would ask why the clergy of the Established Church should be allowed, any more than the ministers of any other Denomination, to levy tithes on articles of produce, whether extraordinary or ordinary? ["Oh, oh!"] The cries he heard from the other side of the House justified him in rising to take some part in this debate, in order to assert the sound principle with regard to this and all other questions of tithes, that they were nothing but a tax imposed by the State for national purposes. It might be true that the burden of the extraordinary tithe was unequally distributed; but essentially its incidence was pro rata—that was to say, that the tax bore a proportion to the productiveness of the soil. The same principle ruled the imposition

    1737
    of the Income Tax upon millowners and manufacturers. They could only deal with the extraordinary tithe as a burden in the same sense that all taxes were burdens. He was willing to admit that, nowadays, they did not look over closely into sound principles of economy; but it was essential, when hon. Gentlemen on one side seemed to be settling this matter so amicably within the four corners of a Private Bill, that they who regarded the question from a broader standpoint should warn the country that national property was here being dealt with. ["No, no!"] If ever there was a time when it was needful to guard the national interests, it was at a time of general depression like the present. It was all very well to protect the farmers' interest, and he had no desire that it should be neglected. But they must also look at the national interest. There were other classes to be considered whose interests in this matter were really as important. Let them suppose such a thing as the Disestablishment of the Church. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he only put it as a bare possibility, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be none the worse for contemplating it even at a distance, because it would be brought nearer to them day by day; and they would be the less taken by surprise if they got into the way of looking at it in a calm way. Let them take the case of the Irish Church. When Disestablishment occurred in Ireland, Parliament, in seeking to do justice to the clergy and to the owners of tithes in that country, gave ample compensation; but there was a large reserve of national ecclesiastical wealth which had proved immensely useful in getting over certain financial difficulties in connection with the land in Ireland. If the general depression which now existed continued to prevail in this country, an equal need might be experienced on this side of the water, and we might be glad to have command of such a reserve fund to meet difficulties which might arise. Therefore, he hoped that this question of extraordinary tithes would not be at present carried to a solution. He, for one, would like to look beforehand as to the way in which they were to deal with the question of tithe, ordinary or extraordinary. If, however, this Bill, and other Bills dealing with the same subject, were referred to a Select Committee, he had no doubt
    1738
    that the Government would have the Committee so appointed that the national point of view would be duly considered. From what he had himself been able to read and observe as to what was passing in the agricultural districts affected by this question, he was inclined to think that the dissatisfaction which prevailed related, not only to the levy of the tithe, but as to its appropriation. In some districts the clergymen had very light duties to discharge, while they were in the enjoyment of very large incomes. He believed that if it could be enacted that tithes should come back into the National Exchequer to be used for national purposes, a great deal, if not all, of the objection to the payment of tithes would cease. So long as the view that tithes were national property was not obscured, he welcomed the discussion of the subject; and he should look forward to the Report of the Committee on the subject with much interest.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the last speaker had complicated this subject by introducing two points which had no necessary connection with the Bills before the House. The hon. Member designated the tithe as a national tax. He (Mr. Hubbard) knew that that theory was invented by the late Mr. Miall about 40 years ago, when he instituted the Liberation Society; but no man who had read history on the subject would deny that the origin of tithes was lost in the obscurity of time, and he denied that they operated as a tax. He would admit that Parliament had exercised the right to deal with this question. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, everything in this country was subjected to the supremacy of Parliament, and, therefore, it had the power to appropriate them if it chose; but that supposed the case of a revolutionary Parliament, and there were considerations which might bind Parliament as well as individuals. There were considerations of right and wrong, and there were considerations of origin. He again denied that this tithe was a tax. A tax was an impost levied by the State on the people for national purposes; but in this case nothing was levied on the people at all. Originally, the proprietor gave a certain portion of the substance of his estate to the support of the Church in a particular parish. The proprietor detached a certain amount of his rental, to which he

    1739
    and his heirs were entitled in perpetuity, and how could that be a tax upon the people? The tithe fell upon the landlord, and if it were abolished to-morrow the land would be more free and would obtain a higher rent from an ordinary tenant. But all they had to deal with at present was the hop question, and while there were several Bills which proposed to deal with it, he could not say that the Bill now under consideration was the fairest measure on that subject. It proposed, first of all, that an estimate should be taken of what had been produced by the extraordinary tithe for a certain period. It fixed, arbitrarily, a certain capital value on that product, and then it capitalized it again on another arbitrary adjustment. For his own part, he objected to all arbitrary adjustments. With regard to hops, nobody was obliged to grow them. But a grower of hops knew beforehand what the charges would be, and he generally made a very good thing of his growth. The growth of hops had been immensely increased since 1836, and it would not have increased if had been oppressed with charges and rates that took away the profit of the grower. He hoped these Bills would go before a Select Committee which would carefully and impartially consider the whole question.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he hoped the House would not allow the debate to be converted into an academic discussion on the Divine or the human origin of tithes, and on questions more or less connected with that distant shadow of Disestablishment which appeared to hang over both sides of the House. If the House would allow him, he would say simply that there were two opinions on the subject. There was the opinion of those who looked on tithes as of a quasi-Divine character, or who thought that the tithes were granted to the clergy by pious proprietors 1,000 years ago, and could not be diverted; and there was the opinion of others who thought tithes were public property, utilized for the public through certain channels for the advancement of religion through the payment of the clergy. He begged the House not on this occasion to go into that question, but to adhere strictly to the question really before it,
    1740
    which was this Bill and the other two Bills, Nos. 3 and 5 on the Orders—the Tithe Rent-Charge Amendment Bill and the Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption Bill—and whether they should be referred to a Select Committee. On the question of the Bills themselves, there was a great deal of force in what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hubbard) just now, though he could not agree with him in one respect. The hop tax was repealed some time ago, and no doubt that had led to a greater amount of capital being employed in hops. In other respects, also, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, whose view would, he hoped; be supported by some Member of the Select Committee. As to the course the Government proposed to take, he might say that they entirely agreed with the proposal to refer all these Bills to a Select Committee, and they would recommend accordingly. There was also another Bill, that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Leighton), which, although not before the House that day, was so germane to these in one respect, that he thought it also should go before the same Committee. That was the general Bill as to tithe, which proposed that the incidence of tithe should be altered, just as it was proposed in one of these Bills that the incidence of extraordinary tithe should be altered. The Government thought the subject was one of great importance, and that the public interests, apart from those of the landlords, tenants, and parsons, should be distinctly represented on the Committee. In selecting the Committee, therefore, care would be taken that that interest should be represented. He trusted the House would now allow these three Bills to be read a second time; and if no one else did so, he would, thereafter be prepared to move that they be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he must express his regret that the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) should always endeavour to prevent any measure being passed that had for its object the removal of grievances connected with the Church of England, or which tended to make the Church more popular. There was a growing feeling throughout the country in favour of settling the ques-

    1741
    tion of extraordinary tithes. He had heard the moderate language of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton) on the subject with much pleasure, although it was scarcely in accordance with his former utterances. He protested against the assertion that the Representatives of the county of Kent had shown no anxiety for the settlement of this question during the last Parliament. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members of the House that the Bill introduced in the last Parliament had been prepared by Mr. Inderwick, jointly with Sir Edmund Filmer, then Member for Mid Kent, whose name was on its back, and who had always taken a great interest in the settlement of this question. In his opinion, the fairest mode of taking the valuation was to take farm by farm rather than parcel by parcel, and for that reason he approved of the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Norton). A general feeling existed throughout the county of Kent in favour of some step being taken to settle the question, and all the Members for that county thoroughly approved of the proposal that the whole of the subject should be referred to a Select Committee, upon which he hoped there would be placed many hon. Members who were specially conversant with the subjects of extraordinary tithes and of hop plantations.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he also approved of the intention to refer the question to a Select Committee, who would take a comprehensive view of it. He expected valuable results would ensue from the adoption of that course of dealing with it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that, so far as the Opposition had any wish in the matter, they certainly desired that the Bill should be fully and minutely considered. There were one or two points which he recommended to the special notice of the Select Committee. Great care should be taken to see that the district of valuation should be a fair one, for if it were made upon very small areas, great injustice would be worked. He also
    1742
    trusted that it was fully understood that the question whether the tithes should be paid by the owners or by the occupiers, was an open one. The question of the capital value of extraordinary tithes was one of difficulty, looking at the very divergent and extreme schemes suggested, inasmuch as it was proposed, on the one hand, that the value should be capitalized at three years' purchase, and, on the other, at 30 years' purchase. That was a point, therefore, with regard to which the Select Committee would do well to be exceedingly careful. He was glad to notice the disposition to treat the question in a fair spirit; and as the subject was one which could not be best dealt with by the House, he approved of sending it to a Select Committee.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he objected to larger areas being taken for any valuation than those which were now adopted.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he must congratulate the Government and the House upon the moderate tone which this debate had taken as compared with that of former discussions. Had such a tone been preserved before, the question might have been amicably settled years ago. But he was bound to protest against the attacks—unjustifiable and cowardly he must call them—which had been made upon those who, after all, were defending their rights, and those not personal rights, but their rights as trustees—the rights of the offices they held. He would ask whether the Select Committee would have power to refer to the labours of a previous Committee on the subject of tithes, and whether it was intended to take evidence?
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he proposed that the Select Committee should have the advantage of both courses.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to a Select Committee.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 65.]
  (Colonel Brookfield, Mr. Farquharson.)
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 65.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL BROOKFIELD, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that when a

    1743
    matter of this kind was brought forward, the first question which people asked was—"What is the grievance?" Looking at the question of extraordinary tithe from a purely theoretical point of view, he confessed that there appeared to be no grievance at all. It was determined, at the time of the Commutation Act of 1836, that it would be unfair to burden for ever the land at the rate required by one exceptional crop, or even a few exceptional crops, such as fruit, hops, and market-garden produce. It was therefore decided that so long as these crops were grown, the land should pay increased tithe, much on the same principle as that which was observed with regard to turnpike roads—that those who used them should pay for their maintenance. He believed that the grievance of extraordinary tithe arose out of the abolition of the foreign hop duty. If that duty had been left, his opinion was that there would not have been so much complaint with respect to tithes as there now was. The bigoted Free Traders, in their enthusiasm to take off duties of all kinds, really went too far in this particular instance. The duty was one of 45 s. per cwt. on foreign hops, and 18 s. or 19 s. on British produce. The Government of the day first equalized the two, and then removed the foreign duty altogether; and he challenged any Free Trader, whatever his fondness for absolute equality in that direction might be, to say that the British producer had not suffered severely from the abolition. He rejoiced to see from the tone of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen that there was a possibility of at length settling this question on something like equitable terms. He was informed by his Friends that if these Bills went to a Select Committee, there was every prospect of useful legislation being the outcome of their labours. In listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary expressing the intentions of the Government on this point, he could not help thinking how unfortunate it was that such matters as this should not be under the control of a Minister entirely charged with the interests of agriculture. He believed that those who were most interested in the question would have had their demands settled long ago if such a Minister had sat in the House, to whom appeals could be made for advice and assistance. His Bill had practically
    1744
    the same object in view as that which had been discussed. It dealt, however, with one matter which the other measure had not touched upon. He thought it best and most convenient to go to the root of the matter, by dealing with the ordinary as well as the extraordinary tithe, in the direction of abolishing the distinction between them, and by making the whole payable by the landlord rather than the tenant. He was convinced that anyone who had carefully studied the Commutation Act of 1836 would approve of that arrangement. He had also dealt with the subject of corn averages, a question of great importance, both to the clergy and the tenants at the present time. He had been actuated in the matter by a desire to get at the root of the difficulty, and by a desire not to leave the question to be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion by successive Parliaments. The Commutation Act of 1836 was supposed to be a final settlement of this matter, and, like similar settlements in other branches of legislation, it had, as a matter of course, proved to be nothing of the kind. He believed that a sufficient length of time had elapsed since 1836 to allow of a comprehensive measure being introduced to deal with the question of tithes. He would, therefore, ask the House to formally assent to the second reading of his measure, in the hope that he might afterwards be allowed to refer it to the same Select Committee which would be charged to deal with the previous measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Brookfield.)
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not object to the second reading, or the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee; but he thought it should be understood that, in taking that step, they were not accepting the principle of a measure so wide in its scope. He would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the scope of the measure as stated in its Preamble, and which extended to the payment of ordinary as well as extraordinary tithe. The Bill went a good deal beyond the question they had hitherto been discussing, its principle practically amounting to a prohibition of freedom of contract as between landlord and tenant. Unless

    1745
    strong grounds existed for taking such a step, he thought it was inadvisable to embark on such a policy, especially as there was not a clear understanding on the part of the House regarding the objects of the Bill as they were to be gathered from the recitals in the Preamble.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that tithes were paid by the tenant out of the produce of the soil; and if the liability were to be transferred to the landlord, at which he believed they would all be glad, they should take care that the position of the tithe-owner was not made a better one than it was at present, or than that which the law gave him. If the Bill went before a Select Committee he thought that this point should be impressed upon them. On the general question, as a Member of the Select Committee, which sat some time ago, he was glad to find some steps being taken in the direction of their recommendations, and that we were at last within reach of a settlement of the whole matter.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that the question of extraordinary tithe was one that was ripe for settlement on all sides, and could be dealt with without reference to any question relating to tithes generally; and he hoped that an understanding would be come to, that the Committee should make an early Report upon the question of extraordinary tithe by itself. With regard to the Bill now under consideration, he contended that it simply converted extraordinary tithe into ordinary, taking no account of the special condition imposed upon extraordinary tithe when it had been sanctioned. Such a proceeding would be entirely one against common sense. The Bill fixed the extraordinary tithe upon the land, as the ordinary tithe was fixed. Sir James Caird, in his evidence before a Select Committee, had pointed out that the question of redemption was a very difficult one in the case of what might be a vanishing quantity, since the tithe-payer might discontinue the particular cultivation of the land. It was now proposed that this charge should be converted into a permanent one, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would so guard the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, as not to imply that the House sanctioned either
    1746
    the principles or the provisions of this Bill.
    MR. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he trusted the House would allow this Bill to go to the Select Committee, although he quite agreed with the necessity for a special and early Report on the subject of extraordinary tithe. That was a pressing matter, the settlement of which ought not to be delayed while the larger question was being dealt with. He therefore hoped that special instructions would be given to the Select Committee to make a special Report upon extraordinary tithe. The question of tithes in general was a very large one, and that of extraordinary tithe was one which ought to be settled as rapidly as possible. When the Committee had reported upon the latter, they could then open up the larger question of general tithe.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that they had three Bills before them, dealing partly with ordinary, and partly with extraordinary tithes; and, in his opinion, it would not be fair to exclude any one of these three Bills from the consideration of the Select Committee. He thought, however, that it was very desirable that it should be clearly understood that the Committee was not bound by either of the recitals or the proposals contained in these Bills. There was no doubt that the tithe rent-charge was a charge upon the land; whereas extraordinary tithe had originally been taken in kind, and was paid by the occupier of the land. It had been said to be for the benefit of the occupiers; but he would not now enter into that controversy. As he had before observed, he thought that in taking up these three Bills, the Committee was not to be bound by the individual recitals of the Bills. It would be anomalous to say that the Committee should deal with the question of extraordinary tithe, and not with the general question. Upon the question as to the Report of the Committee, bethought that it was reasonable that the Committee should first report upon extraordinary tithes. It was of great importance that they should have an authoritative decision upon this question; and he should therefore agree to the Motion to refer this Bill to the

    1747
    Select Committee, on the understanding stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth). He would, however, call attention to one point which would require great care—namely, the alteration in the system of corn averages. There was a good deal to be said for a longer term of years, though he thought that the Preamble of this Bill hardly expressed the matter sufficiently clearly. All this, however, would be considered by a Select Committee.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he thought that it would not be fair to exclude this Bill from the consideration of the Select Committee, where all the open questions could be discussed, and where, of course, they would not be bound by the details of the Bills. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had also pointed out that it would not be possible to exclude from the consideration of the Committee the very important question whether, or not, the charge was payable by the owner of the land. Extraordinary tithe did not differ in the matter of payment from ordinary tithe; it was only different in its origin. It was most important that it should be understood by the Select Committee that the House, in referring this Bill, did not recognize the view laid down in its Preamble, as the correct interpretation of the law with regard to the liability of paying tithes. With regard to the subject of corn averages, he hoped that here again the hands of the Committee would be left completely untied. A mere extension of the term of years might in some cases work great injustice. The Committee would have to consider the question what alteration, if any, was to be made with regard to the important subject of corn averages, how it was to be applied, and when it was to come into force.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he thought that there would not be any advantage in making this tithe a variable amount, payable by the landlord rather than by the tenant; it would only lead to inconvenience, that the landlord himself should have to discharge the tithe on a property which was let to another person. In the first instance, it had been a charge upon certain produce of the land, and the producer had to pay in kind. For the sake of convenience, that payment had been converted
    1748
    into money; but its nature had not been changed by that fact. With regard to the question of the corn average, he doubted very much whether it would again rise to par, as they now had every kind of produce coming in from all parts of the world ridiculously cheap. The Bill, however, in his opinion, contained much that was good, and he thought that it was highly desirable that it should go to a Select Committee.
    MR. EVERETTsaid, that if the Bill had dealt only with extraordinary tithe, he would not have troubled the House with any observations, as that was an impost of which, thank Heaven, the people in the county in which he lived knew nothing. But with the burden of ordinary tithes they were only too familiar. He agreed with the proposal of the Bill, that tithe should be made payable by the landowner rather than by the tenant. He knew that a great deal of friction arose between the farmers and the clergy through the payment of the tithe by the farmers; but, while he wished to see that changed, he trusted that the Committee, to whom the Bill was to be referred, would not recommend any course in carrying out the alteration which would increase the security at present possessed by the owner of the tithe. The owner's security now was in the produce of the land. He had no claim on the personal or other property of the landlord. If the land went out of cultivation, as he was sorry to say a good deal of land had gone out of cultivation, and he feared a good deal more would go, the tithe-owner could hold the land until he had paid himself out of the produce; but he had no other remedy, and he (Mr. Everett) did not think there would be any desire in the House to still further strengthen the tithe-owners' hands as against the unfortunate owner of the soil. He had also a word to say as to the question of the corn averages. This Bill proposed to lengthen the number of years on which the average was taken from seven to 40. Now, so far as the matter had come under his observation, all the complaints made in the past had rested on the fact that the number of years already taken had been too long. Singularly enough, it had happened that when farmers were receiving a high price for corn, they were generally paying a low tithe, and that

    1749
    when they were receiving a low price, they were paying a high tithe. Notably in 1879, the most disastrous agricultural year within the memory of this generation, tithe stood at 111 or 112. He hoped there would be a shortening of the seven years, not a lengthening. If the landowner paid instead of the tenant, the rent would be based, not on an average of 40 years past, but upon prices current at the time. In regard to the fear expressed by the last speaker (Mr. Hubbard), that we should never see tithe at par again, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was wrong; and he was encouraged in the hope by this fact—the Church in the past had always shown singularly good judgment in dealing with temporal matters. When tithes were commuted, in 1836, the advisers of the Church had the option of having their future receipts for tithe, based either on so many bushels of corn, or on so many pounds sterling. They had more confidence in the stability of the value of corn than of the value of money, and so they elected to have the tithe based on corn. Their judgment had proved right in the matter, ever since 1836, until a few years ago. Now, the value of money had risen, after a long period of movement in the opposite direction. For himself, he believed that the miseries being suffered in agriculture and commerce to-day were mainly the result of that altered value of money. The purchasing power of the sovereign, in which our bargains had all been made, had risen, so that we had to give up a larger portion of goods to obtain the necessary sovereigns. That had been caused largely by the disuse of silver in Europe and America. He hoped we might soon see silver restored again to its former place, and consequently a restoration of money to its former value—the value in which their bargains were made. Looking at the tendency on the part of money to decrease in value, on which tendency the Church had based her decision to take her tithe in corn rather than in money, and looking at the shrewdness which had ever attended the Church in her bargaining in the past, he hoped events would yet prove that in this matter, too, she had judged right, and that we should see tithe come back to par.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that a reference to a Select Committee
    1750
    of this kind was, to a certain extent, a reference to a Committee of experts. A Committee formed to deal with the question of extraordinary tithes alone would, probably, be formed of Members who were well-informed on that subject, but might not necessarily have the wider experience required for the larger subject. He suggested that the fact that both subjects would come before the Committee should be taken into consideration in its constitution.
    MR. LONGsaid, that the present system of the payment of tithes was seriously felt by the tenant farmers, and he regretted that the payment had fallen on the occupier instead of the owner. He confessed he would rejoice to see the system altered, as he believed it would remove a grievance, and would strengthen and improve the position of the Church. The more the Committee had before them the more probable it would be that they would be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He therefore hoped that this Bill would be sent with the others to the Committee, and that something useful would be the result.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on the Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Amendment Bill.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
  (Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Paulton).
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.

    [BILL 74.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. FRY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he need not detain the House very long, as the principle of the Bill was so exceedingly well known. As that, however, was the first occasion on which any county measures had come before the new Members embodying that principle, he might say, in a few words, why the county of Durham asked for special legislation on the subject. He did not hesitate to say, at the outset, that he would very much rather a Bill had been passed affecting the whole of England. He believed that, for many reasons, it would have been much more

    1751
    satisfactory; and if Her Majesty's Government had announced that they were really intending to take up and pass into law a general measure, it would not have been necessary for him to introduce the Bill to the notice of the House. In the absence of any such direct intimation on the part of the Government, the Representatives of the county of Durham did not feel inclined to wait any longer. Now, the two principal points which the House had to consider were, whether the principle of Local Option was to be applied to Sunday Closing in England; and, secondly, whether the county of Durham was ready for the application of the principle. So far as regarded the application of the principle of Local Option, the House had already affirmed, on three separate occasions during the last Parliament, a Motion, moved by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, declaring that Local Option, in some cases at any rate, was an exceedingly good thing; and a fortnight ago, when his hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Sir Joseph Pease) brought in his Bill dealing with Sunday Closing, several Members opposite argued in favour of the application of the principle of Local Option to Sunday Closing, and thought it would be much better if the measure should be presented in that way. But it had always been found, when these questions had been before the House, that hon. Members who objected to Sunday Closing were divided into two classes; and when a measure came before the House advocating Sunday Closing for England generally, a number of Members said that they preferred that they should proceed by the counties; and when a county Bill was introduced other Members said they preferred to proceed by measures affecting the whole country. In reference to the question of Local Option, he reminded hon. Members who did not agree with him of the allusion made to the subject by the Marquess of Salisbury in the speech he recently delivered at Newport. The noble Marquess said the question of Sunday Closing was a burning one, and then went on to say—
    "We admit that the closing of public-houses on Sundays, where that is according to the views of the population, is a legitimate act to take place."
    1752
    That he (Mr. Fry) hoped would be considered very high authority indeed on the question of Sunday Closing. If the first point were granted, the only other point to be considered was whether the county of Durham was ready for the application of the principle of Local Option to Sunday Closing. The House would remember that in 1883, when this Bill affecting the county of Durham was read a second time, 153 Members voted for it, and only 57 against it. The Bill conferring the same privileges on the county of Cornwall was passed by this House. The measure passed its second reading in the House of Lords, and was only thrown out on the third reading by an exceedingly small majority. Now, what was the position which had been attained in the county of Durham upon this subject? There were in the last House 13 Members from the county of Durham, and 12 of these were pledged to support the measure. The 13th Representative of the county (Sir George Elliot) said in his place in the House that, although he was personally opposed to the measure, he was so fully aware of the wishes of his constituents in reference to the matter that he could not vote against the Bill, and he left the House when the division was taken. There were now 16 Members from the county of Durham, and 15 out of the 16 were in favour of the measure. Only yesterday the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Milvain) put down a Notice of objection to the measure. He hoped that when, in the course of the debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman found he was the only Member from the county who opposed the Bill, he would take the course pursued by Sir George Elliot, and not vote against the Bill, which, he must know, was so largely supported by his own constituents. This was not a political question. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Predecessor in the House was one of the most earnest supporters of the measure, and his name appeared upon the back of the Bill introduced in the last Parliament. He (Mr. Fry) did not think there could be any stronger test of the opinion of the district than that 15 out of 16 Members returned by the county affected were supporters of the measure. Furthermore, every Town Council in the county of Durham,

    1753
    with one exception—and that, he believed, was quite accidental—had petitioned at some time or other in favour of the Bill; every Board of Guardians in the county had petitioned in favour of the Bill; and out of 170 parishes, which there were in the county, no fewer than 133 had, at public meetings, passed resolutions in favour of the measure; and on almost every occasion the clergymen of the parish were present, and supported the resolution. Of the association which was specially at work for the propagation of this object, the Bishop of the diocese was President, and the Dean and Archdeacon of Durham were active promoters of the Bill. After all, what the House generally wanted was to ascertain, if possible, the wishes of the population at large. During the Session of 1883 Petitions from the county of Durham were presented to the House, representing about 200,000 persons. One Petition, which he presented himself, bore 140,000 signatures. From a canvass of 25 places, it was found that 16,892 persons signed in favour of the measure, only 1,317 against it, and there were 966 neutral; so that there were nearly eight times as many persons in favour of the measure as the opponents and neutrals put together. He might also mention that Mr. Jenkins, who employed 6,000 hands, said there was a great feeling in favour of the Bill in his district of the county; and the hon. Member for Mid Durham (Mr. W. Crawford), who was an official of the Miners' Association, and who was not able to be present in the House that day, had stated that if they were polled there would be an overwhelming majority of working men in favour of Sunday Closing. That, he thought, was very strong evidence indeed of the very great importance attached to this measure by the people of the county. He hoped, therefore, that the House would be willing to assent to the second reading of the Bill. Some persons argued that if this county measure were passed a great deal of difficulty and annoyance would be occasioned to those who lived just over the county line. With regard to that point, he might say that in two or three Sessions of the last Parliament the counties of Northumberland and Yorkshire promoted similar measures to this and he had no doubt at all that if this measure passed into law those counties, and pos-
    1754
    sibly other counties, would come forward with similar Bills. It must be remembered, moreover, that Sunday Closing had produced good results both in Scotland and in Ireland, and there had been no demand for its repeal. He had now only to allude to the action which the Government took on this question in 1883. He was glad to remind the House that on that occasion they had the very cordial support of the Government, and he trusted they would have it again upon the present occasion. The then Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) spoke most strongly in their favour. The right hon. Gentleman was convinced that an overwhelming majority of the people of the county were in favour of the measure, and therefore he gave the Bill his warmest support. He (Mr. Pry) hoped the House would excuse him for having given these few details. What he had to say, in conclusion, was, anxious as were the people of Durham in 1883 to have Sunday Closing, it might be taken for granted that they were more ready and more anxious to have it now. Having regard to the opinion expressed by the last Liberal Government, the opinion expressed by the Marquess of Salisbury at Newport, and the opinion expressed in the House a fortnight ago by many Members of the Opposition, and to the overwhelming wish of the people of Durham, he confidently asked the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill. 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. T. Fry.)
    MR. MILVAIN, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that, although a young Member of the House, he would not have asked their indulgence, while he addressed a few words upon the second reading of the Bill, had he not been in the anomalous position to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fry) had referred. The hon. Gentleman had said that, because 15 out of the 16 Members returned by the county of Durham were in favour of the closing of the public houses in the county on Sunday, it was evident that it was the unanimous wish of the people of the county that Sun-

    1755
    day Closing should be applied to Durham. With every deference to the opinions of the hon. Gentleman, he begged to contradict him, and he did so upon what, to his mind, was some authority. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the fact that his (Mr. Milvain's) Predecessor was in favour of this measure. So Mr. Thompson was, and so he pronounced himself upon the hustings and in the constituency which he (Mr. Milvain) had now the honour to represent. Was it to be accepted that the people of the county of Durham were favourable to Sunday Closing because, as the hon. Member for Darlington said in 1883, Petitions were presented to the House of Commons signed by 200,000 persons? The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members representing boroughs in the county of Durham, would be satisfied of this—that it was possible to have within a few years some revulsion of feeling. All the Durham borough Members would certainly agree with him (Mr. Milvain) that whatever was their majority in 1880, it was considerably reduced in 1885. The hon. Member had further said the county of Durham was ready for Sunday Closing. On whose testimony, he asked him, beyond that of 1883, was he in a position to say so? If it was because the county Lad sent up so many Liberal Members, he entirely differed from him. Durham was well known for its Liberal proclivities, and was at one time alluded to in a comic paper as the most "no-Tory-ous" county in England. Those who promoted the Bill had satisfied themselves by expressing their opinions on the hustings; and he denied they had the right to say that the whole county was prepared to accept, in every detail, their political programme. He did so on this ground, among others, that his opponent was a Local Optionist and Sunday Closer, and that he (Mr. Milvain) declared his creed on the subject on the platform, as he did now in that House, and beat him. There were on the register of the city of Durham 2,305 electors. Out of that number during the recent electoral campaign, which lasted only one month, he (Mr. Milvain) had personally canvassed over 2,000, and perhaps the hon. Member for Darlington and the House would be surprised to hear that out of the 2,000 whom he canvassed, there were not half-a-dozen who made
    1756
    it a sine quâ non that he should support Sunday Closing. ["No, no!"] He heard an hon. Member say "No;" but he declared that to him on his word, and as his experience; and if he, or any other hon. Gentleman, could pledge his own word in a contrary sense, he was at liberty do so, and to state his authority. Further, he might state that the men who made it a sine quâ non that he (Mr. Milvain) should support Sunday Closing were enthusiasts in the highest degree; they worked in the cause of Sunday Closing with a zeal and energy that was altogether exceptional. In the many meetings which he addressed during the month's electoral campaign, he was frequently asked if he would support Sunday Closing, and he as frequently denounced it as a means of obtaining an end by coercion which could be more satisfactorily and more permanently attained by means which were more Constitutional. He had every reason to believe that all the questions asked in the meetings he addressed, emanated from the same source. He submitted that if the hon. Member for Darlington and other Members for the county of Durham had personally canvassed their constituents and felt their pulse upon this question, as he (Mr. Milvain) had his, they would not come here to say that it was the unanimous wish of the people of Durham that there should be Sunday Closing. Before he left this point, perhaps he ought to say that it was a matter of some surprise to him that the hon. Member for Darlington should declare upon his ipse dixit that the county of Durham was ready for Sunday Closing, when the Bill had not been supported by a single Petition of any sort or kind. Now, the grounds upon which he always had and did now oppose the measure were, firstly, that it interfered with vested interests; secondly, that it interfered with the liberty of the subject; thirdly, that it was objectionable on the grounds of its being exceptional legislation for a particular district; and, fourthly, on the ground that he did not believe it would attain the object for which it was introduced. In the first place, he would deal with the first objection, that it was objectionable on the ground that it interfered with vested interests. Hon. Members opposite would, no doubt, admit that it interfered with vested in-

    1757
    terests; but they would argue that it did so in a very slight degree, that the interference was only in one day out of seven, and then only for a few hours on that one day. He would ask any fair-minded Member of that House whether it was just that anyone should thus be interfered with in the exercise of his calling? Let them suppose for a moment that a man of good character, by dint of labour, thrift, and energy, had scraped together a certain capital, which he was prepared to invest in the purchase of a house, and in procuring a licence for it. It would be said that the licence was only for a year, and depended on the man's character and conduct; but the capital was invested in the house, and what the publican maintained was that his good conduct and his character were the pledges for his security. Well, supposing it were admitted that the opening of his house for the few hours left upon a Sunday resulted in a profit of £1, that man would thus receive £52 a-year from his Sunday's trade. At 5 per cent, the measure of his losses through Sunday Closing would represent the return upon a capital of £1,040. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed. He knew they had a very different feeling sometimes with regard to vested interests and existing contracts to that which he entertained; but he told them they were not acting justly, and he put the matter upon higher grounds, and grounds which he submitted to the House were practically unanswerable—it interfered, he said, with the liberty of the subject, [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed. [Renewed laughter.] Very different views on that subject had been held on the Benches opposite in former times; but he thought it was a principle which all might hold to-day, that the liberty of the subject should not be interfered with unless upon the strongest proof that the liberty had been abused to the detriment of a substantial proportion of the community. Now, where was the proof, he asked, that the liberty of the subject in the county of Durham as to the opening of public-houses on the Sunday in order to get beer had been abused to the detriment of a large proportion of the population? He maintained there was a total absence of any such proof. Fifteen years ago, when he was in the habit of attending the
    1758
    Durham Quarter Sessions, there were 108 to 115 cases set down for trial. Why? Because the sale of drink was almost wholesale; because the times were good and because the people were not educated. What was the condition now? Why, the condition of things was immeasurably altered, and, instead of there being the number he had given as formerly existing, there were only about 18 persons to be tried at Quarter Sessions. There was a diminution of crime throughout the whole county. If the hon. Member for Darlington had brought forward his measure 15 years ago, there might have been some ground for saying that the liberty of the subject had been abused to the detriment of a substantial portion of the community; but he submitted that now there was no ground for such an assertion. The proof justifying interference with the liberty of the subject ought to be much stronger in the case of exceptional legislation applicable to one county, than in the case of legislation applicable to the country at large; and during his personal canvass in the city of Durham it was his pleasure not to see in his canvass more than 10 men who were at the time in a state of intoxication. It was upon that ground that he asserted the county of Durham was not ripe for the measure proposed by the hon. Member. [Laughter.] His canvass lasted from 10 A.M. to 10 P.M., and he could speak with a greater knowledge than hon. Gentlemen who laughed. It could not possibly be said the inhabitants of his constituency were suffering from over-drinking. Again, he wanted to know on what principle they were to attack the inhabitants of the county of Durham in the centre, whereas they did not touch those who were upon the borders? He had in his possession statistics of crime, giving the Returns of the convictions for drunkenness on Sunday throughout the county. Up to September, 1885, he found that in the city of Durham the total number of resident persons convicted of drunkenness upon the Sunday was only 10 in a year; he found that throughout the whole county 216 resident persons were so convicted, and that, upon a population of 600,745, was only a proportion of somewhat over one in 2,000. When they came to consider where the average was knocked up, they found it in such

    1759
    places as Gateshead, standing upon the banks of the Tyne, a very densely-populated district; they found there that, out of a population of 65,000, the convictions were 65 in one year for Sunday drinking, which gave a proportion of one in 1,000. They might take it for granted that the average was knocked up somewhere in the neighbourhood of the banks of the Tyne, and that was upon the border of the two counties of Northumberland and Durham. He thought he was justified in saying that if they looked at the statistics for all the other counties of England, the case of Durham would not be found to be at all exceptional. On turning to Northumberland, he found that the total average was somewhere about the same; but at Tynemouth, where there was a population of 44,118, 70 persons who were residents in the place were convicted in the course of a year of drinking on the Sunday. In Newcastle, which had a population of 145,359, 148 persons were convicted of Sunday drinking, an average of something over one in 1,000. Now, what would be the result of Sunday Closing in Durham? It must be that injury would be done to vested interests in the adjoining counties of Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Westmoreland. People finding Durham so highly virtuous would flock into that county, and thus the vested interests of the publicans in the adjoining counties would be seriously affected. But the converse they would find much more probable—namely, that persons would flock to the adjoining counties, and there increase the drunkenness on the Sunday. This was one reason, at any rate, why there should not be this exceptional legislation for the county of Durham; but, as he had said, he opposed the Bill upon another ground—namely, that it amounted to exceptional legislation. He desired to know upon what principle it was that this law was to be made to deprive the poor of their drink when there was no law to deprive the rich of their drink? If this law was good for the poor it was good for the rich. He asked the hon. Member for Gateshead, whose name he saw on the back of the Bill, upon what principle he could go into his constituency, attend Divine worship upon the Sunday, then turn his back upon Gateshead, cross over the bridge into Newcastle,
    1760
    walk into his club, and enjoy drink, while his poor constituents were to be deprived of any refreshment at all? Upon that ground, if upon no other, this Bill ought to be opposed. He maintained that if the measure were passed it would not attain the end in view, and he said that from experience. The hon. Member who had moved the second reading had spoken of what was done in 1883. He (Mr. Milvain) could tell the hon. Member what was done in Durham in 1883. During the time that the Bill was before the House preparations were made by the publicans as well as by private persons to provide themselves with three-gallon kegs—with what object? ["Oh, oh!"] He heard some hon. Member say "Oh, oh!" but did that hon. Gentleman contradict him? Those three-gallon kegs were intended to be filled on Saturday nights and conveyed to private houses for the consumption of their contents on the Sunday. During his canvass in the city of Durham he came across some total abstainers who, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wilson) would be surprised to hear, absolutely denounced this measure, and denounced it for the reason that it would not effect the object in view—because it would do in Durham what it had done elsewhere, and spirits and beer would be conveyed into private houses on the Saturday night for consumption on the Sunday. It was quite understood in the county that men would club together to attain their object, and that they would drink at home on the Sunday, and thus set a bad example to their wives and children. He did not wish it to be assumed that he was opposed to temperance. During his candidature he did not succeed in pleasing either the publican or the total abstainer. He advocated non-political clubs, in which drunkenness should be a sufficient ground for expulsion. He advocated cocoa-palaces; he advocated the enlightenment and amusement of the people by means with which the publicans did not agree; indeed, he maintained that the evil of which complaint was made ought to be met by some other measure than the one now before the House—by such a measure, for instance, as that introduced a few days ago by the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease). The hon. Baronet's Bill dealt with the question of Sunday drinking very fairly, for it pro-

    1761
    vided that public-houses should only be open on Sundays during reasonable hours, and only then for the sale of drink to be consumed off the premises. That was a measure he was prepared to support, for the reason that it did not interfere with the liberty of the subject, and would not cause any individual county or place to be made the subject of exceptional legislation. There were other measures which were advocated at the present time. He thought, from his experience of the manner in which at present magistrates dealt with licences that the system worked satisfactorily, though some were of opinion their conduct was amendable, and ought to be improved. He would not touch upon the matter now; because, in the no distant future, he hoped it would be dealt with in the measure introduced by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Sir Joseph Pease). He must really apologize to the House for having occupied its time so long as he had already done; but he felt very strongly with regard to this measure. It was not within his memory; but, if report was accurate, it might be within the memory of the last generation, that drunkenness was common at the tables of the rich. Well, as to that, it was not so now, and what was the reason? It was the advancement of education; it was because drunkenness was looked upon with disgust and loathing now by the educated classes. If this was so with the rich, why should it not be so with the poor? They were being educated; they were learning themselves that drunkenness was a crime, and that drunkenness, without a conviction even, was a disgrace. He maintained that by example and education they would be able to meet the difficulty without proceeding to ends which might be unconstitutional. For those reasons, he had objected to the Bill among his own constituents, and for those reasons also he now moved that it be read a second time on that day six months.
    MR. GREGORYseconded the Amendment.
    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. Milvain.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down would undoubtedly not harmonize very easily with those which he himself (Mr. Wilson) held, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Gentleman was the Member for Durham, while he (Mr. Wilson) was one of the electors for that city. Both sides of the question were, therefore, represented. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be the little leaven which leavened the whole lump, and he certainly represented that one iota of Toryism which had been sent by the entire county of Durham. He (Mr. Wilson) must confess that he was not one of the party of 10 that had been canvassed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the city of Durham. They, it was to be presumed, saved the city from destruction. Those 10 righteous men, found not in Sodom but in Durham, were in favour of Sunday Closing.
    MR. MILVAINexplained that it was six men who had made Sunday Closing a sine quâ non when he was canvassing. The 10 men were intoxicated.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, Durham was a Cathedral city, with some six or seven Dissenting and Congregational churches and chapels connected with different Religious. Bodies; and there were Good Templar Lodges and Temperance Societies; and he maintained that the great majority of the clergy, as well as of the members of those Temperance Bodies, were in favour of Sunday Closing. In the Good Templar Lodge of which he was a member there were 200 or 300 of the male members who were entirely pledged to support Sunday Closing. He would multiply six by 100, and venture to say that there were not six but 600 men in Durham who would avow openly and plainly that the time had come when the public-houses should be closed on Sunday. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Durham would, perhaps, forgive him if he (Mr. Wilson) said that the opinions he had advanced upon this Sunday Closing Question were about as old as the law the hon. and learned Member practised, and were taught before the hon. and learned Gentleman was born. He (Mr. Wilson} knew the people of Durham, and he knew the working men of Durham far

    1763
    better than the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was held annually, in the county of Durham, a meeting of the delegates of the miners in the county, who numbered some 100 to 150 men, and of which meeting he (Mr. Wilson) was the Secretary. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that not once nor twice, but many times, had this matter been discussed, and there had always been a general consensus of opinion that such a Bill as this should become law. If the House desired it, he would undertake, before next week, to supply the House with Petitions from every colliery in the county of Durham, wherein a majority of the employés, above bank and below, would say that they were in favour of closing public-houses on Sunday.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he rose to state the course which the Government would take in reference to this Bill. It was not very different from the Bill brought forward in 1883, when his Predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), spoke strongly in its favour, and referred to the almost universal desire of the miners of Durham for some legislation of this character. He (Mr. Childers) proposed to take the same course as his right hon. Friend on that occasion. He might be asked how it was he supported the Bill proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir Joseph Pease), which dealt in different ways with the town and the country districts, and had said he thought the principle of the Bill was sound, but that some provision should be made to enable the people in the country districts to get their supply of beer on Sunday for a limited number of hours off the premises. The explanation was simple. The Bill was proposed for the whole country, without an expression of opinion from the people of a particular district as to whether they desired it or not; and he said he should support it as a temporary measure, until a general Act dealing with local government could be passed under which each district could deal with the question for itself, and then it would be reasonable that the power of obtaining refreshment off the premises should be retained. In the present case, however, the House had before it a Bill
    1764
    supported by the great majority of the people whom it would affect. He noticed that it was supported by 15 out of the whole 16 Members for Durham; and, on looking at the polls, he found that those Members represented the overwhelming majority of the people. In these circumstances, he would vote for the second reading.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had had peculiar opportunities for many years of late of knowing the habits and manners of the colliers and factory operatives in Lancashire; and he was happy to have observed growing up, not suddenly, but gradually, not universally, but very generally, a feeling in favour of habits of temperance. In some districts, indeed, that feeling among those classes had almost become a matter of religion. No one could possibly feel more thankful for such a change of opinion than he did. Formerly, intemperance prevailed to a considerable extent among the higher classes in this country; but, by the growth of a better feeling, habits of intoxication had practically ceased among those classes; and he had always held that they might also look for a similar result among the humbler orders from the influence of an improved public opinion. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—he was not quite sure whether he was in Order, at that present moment, in calling the hon. Gentleman by that title—had lately taken a very effective means of putting a stop to the efforts which Members of the late Government thought the wisest mode of meeting the difficulties of that question. When in Office, they declared it to be their intention to deal at once with a measure of local government for this country; and although the present Ministry had also promised to bring in such a measure, it seemed to have now receded into the dim and distant future. They had been reminded that, in his speech at Newport, Lord Salisbury had intimated that the question of Sunday Closing would be included among those questions that would be left to Local Authorities under the scheme of local government that the late Administration had intended to introduce. That seemed to be the wisest course, because then they should have been absolutely certain that it was the wish of the special locality before any

    1765
    measure of this kind came into operation. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fry) had told them that the people of the county of Durham desired to have public-houses closed on Sunday; and, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for the city of Durham (Mr. Milvain) said that the general feeling of the inhabitants of that city certainly was not favourable to that proposal. All that only showed how much better, and how much more practical, it would be to have that question relegated to the Local Authorities, so as to get the real opinion of the community upon it. He had not quite gathered from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers), although much had been said about Local Option, whether it was the intention of the Government to bring forward a measure of that kind or not. He should have thought, if that was their intention, it would have been very much better to have waited a short time before passing this measure, in order that they might see whether a more comprehensive mode of dealing with this question might not have been found. It might be preferable to give Local Authorities the power of regulating that matter. If that Bill were passed, he certainly hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see justice done to one class of persons to whom allusion had been made. There could be no doubt that at present all those licensed victuallers, whether in the county or the city of Durham, who had taken out existing licences, had taken them out on the faith that they would be allowed to sell liquor on Sunday as they had hitherto done; and if that Bill became law, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to restore a portion of the money he had received for the licences of those persons whose public-houses were to be shut up on Sunday. Some years ago there had been introduced a measure by which persons could take out six-day licences at a lower rate of payment than that for licences for seven days in the week; and if the licensed victuallers of the county of Durham were to have their houses entirely closed on Sunday, it would be only fair that they should not have to pay for seven-day licences, otherwise they would be heavily mulcted by the passing of that Bill. If any such Bill was to be passed at all, he
    1766
    would much prefer that proposed on a former occasion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir Joseph Pease) to the present one; but he thought it was a question whether the hon. Member for Darlington should divide the House on his Bill at all.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, it was that whereas for the present year, which he presumed ended in September, some licensed victuallers in Durham had taken out a seven days' licence, it would be fair, if the provisions of this Bill were to come into operation, that they should be repaid the difference between the seven and six days' licence for the remaining period of the year. At first sight that seemed to be fair; and he would mention it to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to see if a considerable proportion of the money paid should not be returned.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had spoken of next year also.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he understood it, of course, to apply to next year. If the public-houses were to be closed on Sunday, the licence would be only for six days.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, he was unable to support the second reading of the Bill. He was an advocate of temperance, and likewise of Sunday Closing; but he was also for Sunday Closing on principles common to the whole country. It would be with reluctance that he should find himself in the opposite Lob by from the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fry); but he himself advocated temperance in a temperate way; and he held that there were many other important principles which should go hand-in-hand with temperance, among these being the liberty of the subject and regard for vested interests, which required to be carefully treated. He was sorry that the matter should be settled offhand, after only an hour and a-half's discussion. He had come to the conclusion that there was a very strong feeling, gradually increasing throughout England, in favour of Sunday Closing, whether in small rural parishes or in centres of population like Liverpool, where something like 40,000 heads of houses had signed a Petition in favour of it. There-

    1767
    fore, what he wished to recommend was that his temperance friends and the House should go slowly in dealing with this very important and burning question. That should all the more be done because Sunday Closing must be dealt with in any Local Government Bill; and he was glad that Lord Salisbury had put it in the forefront of his speech at Newport that he was prepared to deal boldly with that great question. When the subject of Local Government was brought forward, a crowd of other questions would come up to which the principle of Local Option would apply. He felt bound to warn the House that the principle of Local Option, if once introduced, could not be confined to the question of temperance only, for there would be a crowd of places desirous of exercising Local Option on particular questions—as, for instance, Portsmouth and Plymouth might desire to keep in operation Acts which the House the other day condemned. Being opposed to dealing in an off-hand and piecemeal fashion with those matters, he felt unable to support the Motion before the House.
    MR. GENT-DAVIS, who rose amid great interruption, said, he did not propose to detain the House at any great length. He could well understand the anxiety of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side of the House in crying "Divide, divide!" but he thought that it was one of their privileges that they should have freedom of speech. He had a few words to say on this subject; and he believed that he was quite within his rights in speaking, notwithstanding the impatience of hon. Members, and stating why he intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He should have thought that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fry) would have furnished the House with reliable statistics, showing actually what the opinion of the people of Durham was upon this question. But nothing of the kind. He had no statistics to give them. It was true that he had quoted a few figures; but they had been told that figures could be made to prove anything or nothing; and he held they ought not to take away the rights of the minority of the people of Durham, even at the instance of the majority—supposing, of course, that the supporters of the measure were in a
    1768
    majority. He could heartily sympathize with the hon. Member that such noted local optionists as Mr. W. S. Caine and Sir Wilfrid Lawson were not now in the House; but he thought it would be well if they postponed the second reading of the Bill until they could obtain some authentic information as to the real desires of the people of Durham in the matter. At all events, he did not think that they should exclude the people of Durham from taking their glasses of beer or glasses of whisky upon the mere expression of opinion of a Board of Guardians or a Town Council, however conclusive hon. Members below the Gangway might think such views were. He objected to their interfering with the rights of the people, and he particularly objected to this piecemeal fashion of dealing with a great question. Hon. Members who were so loud in their demand for this measure should remember that they were taking away from the poor that which they permitted to the rich and well-to-do. Why was it that the publicans were specially selected for this restrictive legislation? Why were the clubs not mentioned? Was it because the hon. Member belonged to one of those clubs that he had failed to include them in his Bill? Did he wish that they should still remain open? And why were the rights and privileges of the publican to be sacrificed? The publican was heavily taxed, and was entitled to their protection; and why was he to be sacrificed to these clubs, many of which were supported by the lowest class of the community? Local Option was a craze; and to gratify a mere craze they were asked to pass this Bill. For the purpose of enabling them to ascertain the views and opinions of the people of Durham on this question, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Gent-Davis,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 82: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.
  (Mr. T. H. Bolton, Mr. Thorold Rogers, Mr. Borlase, Sir John Lubbock.)
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.

    [BILL 63.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was well understood that this measure was to be referred to the same Select Committee as the Bills which had been under discussion at an earlier period of the day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on the Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Amendment Bill.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  (Mr. Heneage, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Puleston, Dr. Cameron. Mr. Burt, Mr. Arch.)
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

    [BILL 49.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. JACKS (, &c.), who had charge of the measure, said, he would move that the second reading be postponed until that day fortnight. [Cries of "Go on!"] If it was desired that the Bill should proceed, he would at once move the second reading.
    COLONEL MAKINSrose to Order, and asked if the hon. Member, who had named a future day for the second reading of the Bill, was in Order in now proceeding with his Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, having named a future day for the second reading of the Bill, cannot move that it now be read a second time.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 7th April.

  MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE IN CASE OF DESERTION) BILL.
  (Mr. Pulley, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Winterbotham, Mr. Warmington.)
  MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE IN CASE OF DESERTION) BILL.

    [BILL 111.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. PULLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was to relieve a difficulty in the existing law. As hon. Members were aware, women who were deserted by their husbands were compelled to enter the Union before anything could be done to make the husbands support them. This Bill would enable a woman who had been deserted to go before a Stipendiary Magistrate or two Justices acting in Petty Sessions, and obtain that order for maintenance which she could now only get through the Parish Authorities. Women would thus be spared the degradation of becoming inmates of a workhouse, and would have a much more single means of getting relief. The Bill also proposed to give such a woman the custody of the children of the marriage under 10 years of age. He would move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pulley.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was unable to support the Bill, which went a great deal too far, in his opinion. Before the House assented to the second reading of this measure, they ought to know what it was intended to effect. The object of the measure was to give to any two Justices of the Peace the power of decreeing a separation in case of the desertion of a married woman by her husband, which was now exercised by the Divorce Court. He doubted whether the House would be prepared to thus so seriously interfere with the powers of the Divorce Court, or to hand over such an important power to any two Justices of the Peace, without having further and fuller information on the subject. The Bill ought not to pass without far more consideration being given to it than could be given to it now. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would postpone the further consideration of the Bill for a week, so that the House might not be taken by surprise.
    MR. PULLEYsaid, he willingly consented to the postponement of the debate, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

  COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND COMPENSATION BILL.
  (Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. Joseph Bolton, Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND COMPENSATION BILL.

    [BILL 145.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that although the hon. Member who was in charge of this Bill was not in attendance to move its second reading, he (Mr. Gregory) wished to protest against the inconvenience to which the House was subjected in such a case as this, where not only the hon. Member in charge of it was not in attendance to move the second reading of the Bill, but had not even taken the trouble to have his project printed.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must inform the hon. Gentleman that the second reading of the Bill had been postponed for a fortnight to enable it to be printed.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he should move that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Second Reading be discharged."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that such a Motion was unusual in the absence of the hon. Member having charge of the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought that this was a case in which the House ought to take the course, unusual though it might be, of marking its sense of the equally unusual course that had been adopted by the hon. Member. The hon. Member, in the small hours of the morning, had obtained permission to introduce the Bill; and in such a crude state were the ideas of the hon. Member, that he had not even yet taken the trouble to embody them in a printed Bill. It was scarcely respectful to the House that they should be asked to assent to the principle of a Bill which had not yet been even drafted.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) would be contrary to the practice of the House; otherwise, an hon. Member, who had really good ground for postponing his Bill, might come down and find that the Order of the Day relating to it had been read and discharged.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would remind the noble Lord that the House had already that afternoon had before them one or two Bills which had not been printed, and which had been postponed in consequence, and he would suggest that the same course should be taken in this case. He had never heard of the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of a measure being read and discharged before the Bill had been printed. He was quite sure that in the present case the hon. Member for Stafford intended to proceed with the measure.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he was quite satisfied with having drawn the attention of the House to the subject, and he would therefore withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 7th April.

  DROWNED PERSONS (DISCOVERY AND INTERMENT) BILL.— [BILL 123.]
  (Colonel Hughes, Mr. Boord, Mr. Baggallay, Mr Norris, Colonel Duncan.)
  DROWNED PERSONS (DISCOVERY AND INTERMENT) BILL.— [BILL 123.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL HUGHES, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in 1878, in the well-known case of the Princess Alice, a very sad accident had occurred on the river off Woolwich, by which 600 people lost their lives, with the result that the parish had to sustain the whole of the cost of paying the amount of the rewards for the discovery of the dead bodies and of their interment—some £1,200—it having been decided that it could not recover any part of the sum from the county, as would have been the case had the river been the sea. It was therefore proposed by the Bill that in the case of all drowned bodies discovered in tidal rivers, or in running streams, notice should be given to the Local Authorities, and the amount of the reward for the discovery of the bodies and of the cost of the interment should be re-imbursed to the Local Authorities by the county. Since the parish of Woolwich had refused to offer pecuniary inducements for the recovery of corpses, a great scandal had originated,

    1773
    several coroners having made representations that bodies were allowed to float up and down rivers, and that watermen had no inducement to lose their time by picking them up. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass, and he would be happy to consider any Amendments in Committee which might be thought desirable.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Hughes.)
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, that he knew the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was opposed to the Bill on behalf of the county of Kent, on which it might throw a great additional charge. But the Bill was not such a bad one as the one which had been introduced on a former occasion; and, on the understanding that Amendments would be considered in Committee, he was prepared to allow the second reading without a division, and to leave his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University to deal with it on a future occasion.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would not object to the Bill, which, in principle, proposed to effect a sound change. He would support the second reading; but the measure would require a great deal of consideration in Committee. He did not think, for example, it should apply to brooks.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he wished to know whether it was intended to extend the Bill to Ireland? When he was in the Navy, he remembered seeing bodies of seamen floating in the River Lee and Queenstown Harbour. But officers were instructed not to interfere with them, as the Local Authorities were unwilling to bear the expense of providing decent burial. Such a state of things was not creditable to a Christian country.
    COLONEL HUGHES, in reply, said, he should have been happy to have done as the hon. Baronet wished; but he believed that as the original Act of George III. did not extend to Ireland, he could not extend the present Amendment Bill to Ireland.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 7th April.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.