Commons Sitting of 31 July 1889

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBER).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following Letter, relating to the imprisonment of Dr. Tanner, a Member of this House:—
Tipperary,
29th July, 1889.
Sir,
We beg leave to inform you that we have to-day convicted Dr. Chas. K. D. Tanner, a Member of the House of Commons for Mid Cork, of the offence of assaulting County Inspector S. H. Stephens, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, while in the execution of his duty, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," and have sentenced him to one month's imprisonment, and that he is at present in the prison at Clonmel. And further, that Dr. C. K. D. Tanner having outrageously misbehaved and wilfully insulted the Magistrates during the hearing of the case, the Court adjudged and ordered that he should find bail to be of good behaviour, and in default of so doing he should be imprisoned for three calendar months, and Dr. C. K. D. Tanner has refused to give bail as ordered by the Court.
We have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servants

J. VESEY FITZGERALD,

Resident Magistrates.

HENRY BRUEN,

The Right Honble, the Speaker of the House of Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  CEYLON STATISTICS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Returns of "vital statistics," in Ceylon, formerly published as a supplement to the Gazette, were stopped in 1887; whether it is the case that the deaths recorded in these Returns under the item of "deaths by starvation," were mainly produced by the eviction of the cultivators from ancestral holdings for nonpayment of rent or tax; whether these evictions have been and are now carried on by thousands in a year, and invariably followed by starvation and death; and, will he grant a Return of the number of evictions and deaths from starvation for each year, 1869 to 1889, inclusive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de Worms,): It is not known why the statistics alluded to in the first paragraph of the question, which were printed in 1887, were not again printed last year in the Gazette. They are, no doubt, published in the Administrative Reports. As regards the second paragraph, it is not known here that the deaths from starvation, which were three in 1886 and nine in 1887, were the result of evictions. As regards the third paragraph, the Governor ascertained that the author of this grave statement could adduce no proofs in support of it, and it is believed to be at least a very gross exaggeration. The Governor is causing a searching inquiry to be made into the circumstances and results of the evictions, and will be requested to cause the

  1795
  Return mentioned in the last paragraph of the question to be added to the Report.
  SIR E. WATKIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the inform ation is likely to be received?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: There will be no delay whatever in obtaining the information.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL. (No. 358.)
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. E. Smith.)
  MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): In rising to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months, I feel that in some sense I am bound to meet the objections of those who having expressed their own minds upon the question naturally feel that the subject has been exhausted. My apology is the great importance of the question itself. I know it has been said that this is a subject of secondary consideration. I am not of that opinion. In spite of a remark the other day by one of the Members for Birmingham that there is something in the nature of Nihilism in representing the opinion of the people with a capital P, I venture to say from the knowledge I have of the people, whether with a small P or a great P, that this is a matter that creates great interest among the masses of the population. We are brought face to face with a critical stage of the great historico-political problem of whether and how an Hereditary Monarchy can be reconciled with Democratic Government. It is a mistake to suppose that the Monarchical system is necessarily bound up with the aristocratical system—and that the one stands or falls with the other. I am not of opinion that the reconciliation of the Monarchical principle with the democratic is impossible; but whether that be so or not, I am certain that the problem is not an easy one, and that we are justified in keeping it before the public for a continuance of time greater than that which has already been done. But I have a personal reason for continuing the discussion. I have not
  1796
  yet engaged the attention of the House upon this matter; but I desire, as a Scotch Member, and as one representing the ancient historical Metropolis of Scotland, where Royalist traditions still linger, to give my opinions upon this matter. During the past and the present week, both in the House and in Committee, I endeavoured to catch the eye of the Chair. Probably there is no more difficult process known to the Ophthalmic Art. I have hitherto been unsuccessful in my efforts. The other evening I thought I had my opportunity in the prandial period which the custom of the House assigns as the chance of the undistinguished Member. But the butterflies that bask on the Front Benches never seems to bestow a thought on the caterpillars behind them; and the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) relegated me to that sickness of heart which is the proverbial result of "hope deferred." Further, Sir, I feel myself in a position which compels me to strike out for my own hand, seeing that I am standing here in the somewhat tragic, and certainly unarcadian situation of a sheep without a shepherd. I generally listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), not only with that reverence which is due to his unique personality, but with the satisfaction which arises from hearing truth which commends itself to my own mind, stated with matchless eloquence and force. But on the present occasion I found myself bereft of that happiness, and I heard the right hon. Gentleman cheered, not from this side of the House, but by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I confess that the incident pained and bewildered me in a manner that I am not able adequately to describe. And when it came to the right hon. Gentleman's speech being described by the Under Secretary for India and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as magnificent, a horrible suspicion began to haunt me that our illustrious Leader must have made a mistake. Turning myself to his lieutenants I found myself involved in a "confusion worse confounded." I heard them wriggling over distinctions in comparison with whose subtlety the distinction between "Tweedledum" and "Tweedledee" swelled into Atlantic breadth. I found them declaring that while it was

  1797
  the height of insult to say "nay" to the Queen in the House on Friday, it was the pink of politeness to say "no" to her in Committee on Monday—a question of deportment more suitable to the intellect of a dancing master or a member of the school of the late Mr. Turvey-drop, than that of a sagacious statesman of the House of Commons. I have further taken upon myself to prolong this discussion because I desire, if possible, to draw from the Members from Ireland some expression of opinion that will be satisfactory to our Scotch people. One of the most remarkable features in this Debate has been the virtually absolute unanimity with which the Members from Ireland have supported the Government of Her Majesty and the Coercionist Party. How is this? I see it stated freely in the Press that hon. Members from Ireland, although they agree in conviction with us, have supported the Coercionist Party and the Government in order that they may gratify the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and may promote the cause of Home Rule by clinging closely to that right hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, I, for one, feel myself unable to believe that story. In the first place, it can be no gratification to the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian to have the homage of insincerity; in the second place, it can do no good to the cause of Home Rule to become estranged from the Liberal Party; and, in the third place, knowing as I do the character of hon. Members from Ireland, I am unable to believe that they have been acting contrary to their own convictions. I cannot help thinking that in this matter they are moved by a belief that what the Government is doing is right, and that what the Liberal Party is doing is wrong. If I were to believe otherwise, in what position should we of the Liberal Party find ourselves? On many platforms, both in Scotland and England, I have maintained that some of the Representatives of the Irish Party in this House are actuated by a true spirit of heroism, and even of martyrdom. But while I believe that my hon. Friends are actuated by true conviction and by the best of motives in this matter I also think there is something that is due to us of the Liberal Party, who have stood by them cordially through thick and thin; who have been
  1798
  boycotted and punished even to the extent that some of our Party are in prison at this moment for their sakes. Surely it is right, if they think we are wrong, that they should point out the error into which we have fallen, so that we may be guided into better ways. Why are the eloquent lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton) so silent in regard to his unfortunate brethren of the Liberal Party? Only nine days ago the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) accepted an invitation from the city which I have the honour to represent, and never in all its romantic history did it accord a more enthusiastic welcome than was given to the hon. Gentleman on that occasion. Scotland folded Ireland to its heart in the sublime embrace of international brotherhood. If the hon. Gentleman accepted that token of affection, surely it is only right that he should say something for the purpose of guiding us, when we have fallen into error, into the way which he himself approves, and which I have no doubt he is able to substantiate by argument. These considerations seem to me sufficient to justify my personal action in prolonging the discussion a little further, and I wish now to state briefly the position from which I feel myself constrained to disapprove of this Bill. I look upon the Measure from the point of view of a Constitutional but not a yellow-plush loyalty. I think it is calculated to do great harm to the position of the Crown, and to create something in the nature of estrangement between the Throne and the people. In view of the Constitution the Sovereign is the lawful and Christian protectress of her subjects. We have only to look to the Coronation Oath to see that that is a fair description of the Constitutional aspect of the question. I do not wish to press the Christian aspect too far, but taking it generally, I maintain that the Sovereign holds her position on the condition of devoting herself self-sacrificingly and incessantly, and among other things to the good of her people—like other parents, undertaking the duty of providing for the members of her family. If the Sovereign is in the possession of means to provide for her family, we are bound to assume that it belongs to her Queenly position and desire to make

  1799
  adequate provision for them. The real practical question with the people is simply this: Is the Queen able to support her own family? We are told that we must not pry into the savings or the resources of the Sovereign. I believe that at the present moment it is impossible to do otherwise. Ministers have so managed matters, in the course of the discussion of this question, as to create an impression in the public mind that the Sovereign is amply able to discharge the duty of supporting her family. I have no intention of entering into details in regard to the past discussion, but I will give an inference which I think I am entitled to draw. I noticed that when the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) asserted that the savings of the Sovereign were a quarter of a million, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian corrected him, and remarked that if he said that it was one half of that sum he would be nearer the mark. When the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) referred to information, in respect to the resources of the Sovereign, which had been given to the Committee, but withheld from the House, he merely said that the estimate of £3,000,000, which the hon. Member for Sunderland gave as the total savings of the Sovereign, was too large, but the hon. Member did not say that in such a tone as to imply that there was anything to prevent Her Majesty from making ample provision for her family. I am sure that the people of this country are ready to give all that is necessary to enable the Sovereign to perform fully and substantially the duties that are imposed upon her. The people of this country do not grudge the splendour which surrounds the Throne, but only those additions which are ridiculous and absurd. But when we ask for information on this vital point of the Sovereign's actual means how is it that we are met? We are either met with mysterious silence, or with vague and evasive statements. We are told that we have no right to know these particulars—that all we have to consider are the contractual obligations under which we stand towards the Sovereign. But even so, I do not think we ought to be bound by precedents, the youngest of which is 50 years old and created when
  1800
  the people in the large sense was not represented. Even in 1837, when Her-Majesty ascended the Throne, the country was still being run practically in the interest of the aristocratic classes. The people have now come to their estate, and it rests with them to say whether they will ratify the acts of those who then professed to be their agents and trustees. If the Crown has profited by the-action of unfaithful trustees, it ought not to take it ill that when the true beneficiary comes in a strict account should be demanded. In acting as they have done, I believe that the Government and their supporters have been debasing the true relations between the Sovereign and her subjects. They have been degrading the Sovereign to the position of a mere paid official who is more solicitous about her rights than her duties. They have been guilty, so to speak, of a double political blasphemy—namely, of placing the Sovereign before the people as an unnatural parent, who does not understand the happiness and duty of providing for her own offspring, and is content to throw them, as it were, upon the parish; a greedy Shylock—standing on the letter of her bond, insisting on her pound of flesh, but prepared to take an ounce less for prompt payment, though without prejudice. I believe that to be the real attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill, and I have therefore no hesitation in taking upon myself the responsibility of moving its rejection.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put.
  No Division being challenged, Mr. Speaker declared that the "Ayes" had it.
  MR. PHILIPPSthen rose to continue the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The "Ayes" have it.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I rise to a point of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: What point of order?
  MR. PHILIPPS: I wish, Sir, to call your attention to the fact that I was on

  1801
  my legs at the time the Question was being put.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not so. I distinctly saw the hon. Member rise after the Question had been put and decided.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the Postmaster General in carrying into effect any Act of the present Session, to authorise the transfer of the site of the Cold-bath Fields Prison, in the county of Middlesex, to Her Majesty's Postmaster General.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No 307.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. WALLACE: I wish to make one remark in regard to this Bill which I had not the opportunity of making when it was passing through Committee—namely, that I do not think it will work satisfactorily, owing to the inadequate nature of its pecuniary arrangements. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that possibly one-fourth or one-fifth will be abstracted from the fee-fund by the arrangements for extramural teaching and affiliated colleges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in referring to the subject, was careful to enlarge on the comparatively large salaries drawn by about 50 of the present professors; but he forgot to add that there are 50 professors whose incomes average only about £4 70, and that if they are to be raised to £600 according to the recommendation of the Commission, the amount of £6,500 will be at once chargeable on the fund; and that there will have to be added the cost of the new professorships, the assistant professorships, the endowment of new Chairs, and other natters recommended by the Commission. It will be found that the cost
  1802
  of these, if carried out on the most moderate scale, will be £25,000, and if this be added to the amount for the salaries of the professors it sems to me to be impossible that £42,000 should meet all the charges. I have forgotten to include the arrangement for compensation, and when I look at all these matters it seems to me that the measure is in danger of shipwreck for want of resources to carry it out. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it certain that those who succeed him will be responsible for providing everything in the nature of compensation or pensions it might be possible to arrange for carrying out the proposed reform; but if no such arrangement is made, the result will be disastrous to this measure, and possibly we may have to resort to the calamitous expedient of trying to increase the revenues of the University by increasing the contributions of the students. I beg, Sir, to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
  MR. STOREY: Yes, Sir; I will second it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, who is generally on the side of economy, has supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The hon. Member was not in his place yesterday, when, in reply to a question which stood in his name, I stated that it was utterly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to assent to the proposal that compensation should be paid out of public funds, inasmuch as such a course would lead to the raising of all sorts of extravagant claims. I cannot recognise the duty of Parliament to undertake such a task, and beyond this I entirely demur to the view that Parliament is bound to provide for a University on the scale suggested by the Royal Commission. Royal Commissions do not always primarily regard the interests of the

  1803
  taxpayer. I think that Parliament has dealt very liberally with the great Scotch Universities, and I must repeat my belief that there is a large margin of economy to be effected in those Universities by a revision of the scale of payment to the professors, a scale which is very largely in excess of similar emoluments paid to the professors in other Universities.
  MR. STOREY: Perhaps I may be allowed to state that I merely seconded the Motion of my hon. Friend in order that the Government might be induced to reply to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Having done that, I do not mind adding that I agree in the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and shall not press the matter any further.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time (Queen's consent signified), and passed.

  REVENUE BILL (No. 315.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 25, Prohibition of the sale of methylated spirits on Sunday.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I should like to know what is the object of this clause?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The object of the clause is to meet a difficulty which has arisen in Scotland, by reason of the large sale of methylated spirit, which is sold on Sunday for other purposes than that for which the spirit is intended. It is said that, owing to Sunday closing in Scotland, the shops licensed to deal in methylated spirits are in the habit of selling these spirits for drinking purposes, and this clause will enable us to get rid of that abuse.
  SIR W. LAWSON: And the object also is, I assume, to protect people to whom the methylated spirits are sold.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question is one of Revenue.
  SIR W. LAWSON: But the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the great evil arising from the consumption of methylated spirits on Sunday.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; and the object of the clause is to prevent the sale for
  1804
  drinking purposes of methylated spirits on Sunday, and also to protect the Revenue.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I think the clause ought to go a little further, and I therefore move to add the words "and any other intoxicating liquors."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Baronet's Amendment is to protect the Revenue it would be in order, otherwise it is out of order.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Under the circumstances, I will not press the Amendment.
  Clause agreed to.
  New Clause (Repeal of 52 and 53 Vict., c. 7, s. 18, and substitution of other provisions therefor,)—(The Attorney General,)—agreed to.
  New Clause (Extension of exemption of coupons,)—(Mr. Kimber,)—agreed to.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) BILL. (No. 321.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I may observe that to deal with the restoration of the gold coinage comprehensively would involve many broad questions of controversy which would render it impossible to carry through such a measure in what remains of the Session. I therefore ask the House to assent to the comparatively small proposal now before it, the execution of which will supply invaluable experience and material on which to found a larger measure. Should the House assent to this measure the Government would not regard their so doing as an assent to the principle that the State should be recouped for the loss incurred by it on the light gold called in. The sovereigns and half-sovereigns of former reigns are to be withdrawn, and it is estimated that the value of the half-sovereigns of previous reigns now in circulation, and all of them light, is £150,000, the loss upon which would be £7,795, while the total estimated value of light sovereigns of former reigns now in circulation is £4,295,000. The total cost of the whole operation is estimated at about £80,000, but looking to the difficulty of reaching

  1805
  all the light gold in existence, I think that no larger sum than £50,000 will be required in the present financial year. If the House agrees to this proposal I shall next Session be prepared to take up the question of the light gold coinage, and it will then be my duty to explain the general principles on which Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. ATKINSON: I am of opinion that the subject is hardly so difficult as the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposes, and I believe that if he had proposed a larger measure the House would have been enabled to have dealt with it to the advantage of the country. The country makes money by the issue of gold and silver coin, and therefore can well afford to bear the burden of replacing the light coins instead of throwing it upon the last holder. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to deal with the whole subject comprehensively instead of by a balloon Bill of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman says the cost will be £50,000 for the financial year, but I would ask why should the whole of that sum fall upon one year. We must, however, be thankful for small mercies, and if this Bill be assented to we must hope that the subject will be dealt with in a future measure upon a broader basis.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.): I am sure the commercial classes generally will be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced this measure, because, although it is but a small Bill, it establishes an important principle—namely, that of throwing the cost of renewing worn coinage upon the State. It certainly would be most unreasonable to make the last holder pay the cost of the previous wear and tear, and I regard the doctrine of this Bill as commercially sound. Did I rightly apprehend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the value of the light half sovereigns of former reigns now in circulation is £157,000? I should have thought it was a much larger sum. I should strongly object to the suggestion of the last speaker that the cost of replacing the light coinage
  1806
  should be charged on a number of years. The charge is not a large one, and might reasonably be paid for within the year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL. (No. 348.)
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  ARBITRATION BILL (LORDS). (No. 267.)
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 291.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th July], "That the Bill be now considered."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  Clause 1.
  MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): My object in proposing the Amendment which stands in my name is to elicit some discussion on the point whether it is advisable that the two offices of Accountant of Court of Session and Accountant in Bankruptcy should be united. I do not intend to express my own reasons for these objections. I prefer to give the reasons which have been suggested by several Public Bodies in Edinburgh, and I trust that the Government will give some reply to those reasons. There are four Bodies which have objected to this union of the two offices. There is the Trade Protection Society, an Association of 1,300 or 1,400 merchants. There is the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, a Body of high standing. There is the Incorporated Society of Accountants, and finally there is the Council of the Solicitors of the Supreme Court, who are also an important and influential body. Now, the reasons they have put forward seem to me to be strong in themselves. I do not understand them to disapprove of the proposal to extend the supervision of the Accountant of the Court of Session over judicial factors. They agree that that is a great improvement, although they hold it will increase very considerably the labours of that official.

  1807
  There are already 1,300 factories under this officer, and the effect of the alteration will be to place 1,500 more under his control, thus more than doubling his work. But the proposal of the Bill does not stop there. It is intended to assign the duties at present discharged by the Accountant of the Court of Bankruptcy to this new department, and the legal and commercial bodies to which I have already referred seem to doubt the wisdom of that. They hold that from the nature of the duties the two offices should be distinct; and they suggest that whereas the duties in connection with one are purely those of an accountant, the holder of the Accountancy in Bankruptcy requires legal knowledge, in order to enable him to check fraudulent bankruptcies. I do not suppose there is any necessarily inevitable incompatibility between law and accounts, but still there is some force in the objection taken by the societies with regard to the diversity of mental habitude that is produced by these separate functions. That, however, is not all. The Accountant in Bankruptcy already has enough work on hand for one official. He has to deal with 500 sequestrations and 340 cessios per annum. At the present moment there are 1,300 sequestrations, more or less in hand; and besides this, he has to examine 500 sederunt-books, 450 inventories, and 3,000 accounts every year. Now, the bodies whose opinions I am advocating hold that there is a necessity for the extension of the Accountant's supervision over proceedings in bankruptcy—reporting suspicious cases, taking note of the liquidation of companies, and all private arrangements between debtor and creditor, and tabulating statistics on such matters—so as to give the commercial public a complete précis annually of the insolvency in the country. The work in both Departments has been doubled within the last 25 years, and the probability is, of course, that it will continue to increase. Accordingly, the bodies objecting to these proposals think that there may be some danger of the Bankruptcy Department in particular suffering from this merging of one office into another. They hold that in bankruptcy especially there should be speed and personal supervision by the head of the Department in the interests of creditors, and they fear that the union of two
  1808
  offices will lead to there being delay or less personal supervision by the Accountant in Bankruptcy. They, therefore, contend that any economy that may arise from amalgamating the offices—and I presume that economy is the object in view—such economy will be dearly purchased by the injury that will arise, mainly in the Bankruptcy Department. I shall be very glad to have a satisfactory explanation from a Member of the Government on these points, and I therefore move to omit Clause 1, in order to elicit some reply to the objections which have been raised.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out Clause 1.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are certainly of some importance, but at the same time I may say that the opinion of commercial and professional men has been moving steadily during the last five years in the direction of this change. I can assure the hon. Member that an efficient staff will he maintained, and there will be no want of skilled attention to the work of bankruptcy. When the head of the new Department has to be appointed it is inevitable that an expert actuary will be selected, and some one will be chosen who has had personal and professional experience of windings up in bankruptcy. It is true that the Bankruptcy Department work requires special knowledge and experience, but I venture to think that the fusion of the two offices and the consequent increase in the volume of work will increase rather than diminish the celerity as well as the efficiency of administration.
  MR. CALDWELL (, St. Rollox): I have received communications from professional gentlemen and others in the City of Glasgow protesting against the change proposed to be introduced by the Bill. There can be no doubt that Bankruptcy administration requires special knowledge. In order to get a thorough grasp of all the technical details one has to devote almost his whole time to the study. No doubt very pregnant reasons can be given for the change. I do not think it has been brought about by considerations as to

  1809
  the expediency of uniting the two offices, and I believe that really the Treasury is responsible for the Bill, the object aimed at being a reduction of the salary. It is evidently held that the new officer will not be able to do all the work himself, because provision is made in the Bill for the delegation of certain duties. However, at this stage we can do no more than point out the injudiciousness of the Government proposal; we can only point out that the course to be adopted is opposed to the views of the commercial community, and that the responsibility for the failure which may result will rest solely with the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL: At the present moment there are two separate offices—the Accountant of the Court of Session and the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and power is taken in this clause by the Treasury to grant pensions to the holders of these offices. Now the object of the Amendment which stands in my name is that the pension shall only be granted in respect of the salary and emoluments received prior to the passing of this Act. When the Criminal Law Procedure (Scotland) Act was passed, it raised the salary of the Judges, who, immediately after they became entitled to the higher sum, resigned, and were awarded pensions on the basis of the increased salary. Now, I want simply to provide that the present holders of these offices shall not, six months after the passing of this Bill, resign their posts and get pensions on a higher scale than they are now entitled to. I am aware that on this subject the responsibility rests with the Treasury, but I have felt it my duty to point out this objection.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, after the word "Act," to insert the words—
  "But only in respect of the salary and emoluments of such offices respectively as the same existed prior to the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member is quite right. This is a Treasury matter, but it is obvious it would be unjust, supposing that these persons remained in office under the present Act, that they should be limited to pensions on the scale of the remuneration they were now receiving. In some
  1810
  cases their duties might largely increase, and I certainly cannot see any reason for the restriction which is proposed by the hon. Member.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and negatived.
  On Clause 4,
  MR. WALLACE: The fourth clause gives compensation to the holder of the Office of Accountant of the Court of Session on the abolition of that office. It seems to me rather strange that while this compensation is proposed to be given the provision is not extended to the holder of the office of Accountant in Bankruptcy. If it is right that one should receive compensation, surely the other is equally entitled to it. But I understand that arrangements have been made with respect to the present holder of the office of Accountant in Bankruptcy so that there is no necessity for compensating him, and if that is so, I will not press the Amendment which stands in my name.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The office is at present vacant, and the duties are being performed under a temporary arrangement.
  MR. WALLACE: Under those circumstances, I will not move that particular Amendment, but I will pass on to the next one which stands in my name, and which directs that in fixing the amount of the pension regard shall be had to the extent of private practice pursued by the holder of the office, as well as to the length of his service. Of course, I know that this question of the extent of private practice would be one of the "circumstances of the case." But I should like to have this point emphasised by being explicitly inserted in the Bill. I think it would be satisfactory that this should be done. I believe the Act requires that the Accountant of the Court of Session shall not engage in private practice, but, for anything we may know, it may happen that he has had a private practice, it being the duty of no one in particular to take notice of the fact. It is not in the nature of a crime, it is rather an irregularity, but from information which circulates in connection with this matter, I think it would be useful that these words should be inserted. If there has been no irregularity, then no harm will be done to anyone, but if there has been

  1811
  irregularity, then the Treasury ought to be required to take cognisance of the fact in settling the amount of pension to be given. I believe if the Lord Advocate accepts the Amendment he will give a great deal of satisfaction, and allay a certain amount of suspicion and difficulty that exists in connection with this matter.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 4, page 2, line 26, after the word "service," to insert the words "extent of private practice."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not doubt that it is open to the Treasury in determining the amount of allowance to take into consideration all the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but I do deprecate the insertion of the words he suggests, because they would, I think, give official recognition or sanction to a principle which ought not hastily to be laid down. I think this is a matter which must be left with the Treasury.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: My next Amendment has reference to the audit of accounts of judicial factors. According to the existing practice all accounts in cases where a judicial factor has been appointed have to be audited by the Accountant of the Court of Session, and the object of my Amendment is that in Provincial districts the audit may be made by auditors in those districts. Of course the Lord Advocate will naturally object to my Amendment, but I may inform him that I am proposing it at the instance of a legal body in Glasgow, who consider its adoption necessary for the purpose of protecting their interests. Personally I have no interest in the matter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 10, at end of Clause 12, to insert the words:—
  "And except for business in the Court of Session any account for law business incurred by any factor or other person subject to this Act shall be deemed sufficiently audited if audited by the auditor of any Sheriff Court, or by the auditor appointed by the faculty of procurators in Glasgow."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This point was considered by the Grand Committee, who rejected the Amendment. I must deprecate the insertion of specified persons or bodies in a General Act of Parliament. I have the highest respect for the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow; I am certain they perform most valuable duties, but I do not think their name should be inserted in an Act of Parliament under the pretext of enabling the accountant to accept the reports of Provincial auditors.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: I have still another Amendment to propose, and the reception of it by the Government will, no doubt, illustrate how determined they are to reject the most ordinary and reasonable proposals. Under the existing law in bankruptcy cases there is no fee charged for the audit of accounts, but by this Bill it is proposed that while the accountant is bound to audit the accounts of the judicial factors free of charge, the audit of bankruptcy accounts is to be charged for. Now the judicial factors are usually well-to-do men, yet you are going to do this work—for which they can well afford to pay—at the expense of the country. On the other hand the audit of bankruptcy accounts is to be charged for, and people who are not getting the 20s. in the £1 are to be mulct in charges for the audit. I maintain that that is not reasonable, and I therefore move my Amendment, although I know very well what the result will be.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 35, to leave out from the word "and," to the end of the line.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'section' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This question was also carefully considered by the Grand Committee, and I am rather surprised at the indignant tone of the hon. Gentleman seeing that there was no difference of opinion in the-Committee on the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 37, to leave out from the words "bankruptcy cases."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, at end of Clause 17, to insert the words
  "And Section 141 of 'The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1856,' is hereby repealed, so far as said section provides for the review of the lord ordinary and sheriff in the matter of the trustees' remuneration."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Another Amendment made.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: May I ask the House now to read the Bill a third time? The Amendments that have been made are simply in matters of detail, and they in no way affect the general principle. I think there is a general concurrence of opinion in favour of taking the last stage.
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a third time."
  MR. CALDWELL: In passing the Local Government Bill the House came to the conclusion that there should be no compensation or pension except to those who, by the terms of their engagement, are entitled to such compensation on the abolition of their office, but I think it is pretty well understood that one object of this Bill is to create a claim for compensation for the holder of a certain office. The matter has been brought out in this way: the office he holds is to be conjoined with another office, and after that the holder of the conjoined offices is to get a pension in respect to the two offices. Now, an Amendment was moved here to the effect that if compensation was to be given it was not to extend further than to the existing office the person might hold and according to the emoluments of that office. But the Government have hinted that the present holder might continue his appointment for a year or two and then get his pension. He is advanced in years and may only hold office for six or 12 months and then retire on the pension applicable to the larger salary. Now, this is a matter that I should not be justified in allowing to pass without protest, and I do protest on the principle we laid down in the Local Government Bill where we refused to grant a pension
  1814
  or even compensation on the abolition of office, unless the person is otherwise entitled to this compensation or pension. This Bill goes further and creates a right to a pension by the holder of an office. Ostensibly the Bill provides for the amalgamation of two offices, but the simple effect of the Bill is to give to the holder of an office a pension to which he is not now entitled. The present holder of the office will continue in office for six months or 12 months, and then he will retire on the pension applicable to the larger salary of the combined offices.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.): The hon. Member gives a somewhat startling statement of the provisions of the Bill; but my understanding of them is something very different. The hon. Member has before expressed his opinion that the effect, and even the object, of the Bill was to unite two offices, and then the holder of the office of Accountant of the Court will retire with a pension based upon the salary of the combined offices. That statement seems to have made some impression upon Members on this side. Now, if that were the effect of the Bill, no one would be more forward than I to condemn it; but I read the Bill in an entirely different sense. I understand there is a special clause that deals with the office of Accountant of the Court, an office which the present holder has held for many years with general acceptance, and as I read the Bill there is no provision in it for compensating him except in respect to the present office, and the double office will be filled by a new officer on the retirement of the present officer, which, I understand, is about to take place. There is, I understand, no foundation for the statement that the double office will be held by the present Accountant, and that he, in consequence, will be entitled to the double compensation. This is clear to me, but it might, be well if the Lord Advocate would remove any doubt there may be in the-mind of any hon. Member. I do not think it would be right or fair that we should have a special clause providing, for compensation to the holder except in respect to the office from which he is about to retire.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am most happy to reassure the hon. Member on this point, though I should

  1815
  hardly have thought it was necessary to do so. The present holder of the office of Accountant to the Court has served the public for a very long time; he is entitled to retire, and I understand desires to retire. His compensation will be on the scale of the performance of the duties of his single office without any relation to the new office. I am bound to say I did not think, and I scarcely think, how there can be any misconception on the point referred to by the hon. Member for Lanark, but if there is I hope what I have said will remove it.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: There was no misconception on my part.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL. (No. 355.)
  Lords Amendment considered.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Newington, N.): The object of the Amendment having reference to the regulation of the keeping of dogs is to check the disease of rabies among these animals, but it is not in my view germane to the general purposes of the Bill. Dogs are not exclusively connected with agriculture, but, on the contrary, the danger to be apprehended is from dogs in the possession of other than agricultural persons. The Bill proposes to transfer to the Board of Agriculture certain powers prescribed by the Privy Council, and I may be wrong, but so far as my knowledge goes, the power to make regulations for dogs, and exercise control, and make orders for muzzling, etc., does not reside in the Privy Council now, but in the Home Office or the police. The Amendment contains certain provisions with reference to the operation of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, applicable to the control of the movements of animals, such as horses, sheep, and cattle, but are far from being applicable to the constant muzzling and destruction of dogs. So I suggest this Amendment is not germane to the general purpose of the Bill. There are many difficulties and objections in regard to the mode of controlling, muzzling, seizing, and detaining, and disposing of dogs not kept under proper
  1816
  control, and the question of what is proper control is a moot point at present, and the question of compensation to dogs ordered to be slaughtered may arise. Altogether I think this is not among those matters with which the Bill was intended to deal. The Board of Agriculture is not the proper authority to deal with such a matter. The Amendment contemplates the control of all dogs in the country, but the number of dogs that have no connection at all with agriculture far exceeds the number of sheep dogs, and it does not seem to me consistent with the duties of the Board of Agriculture to undertake the control and slaughter of stray dogs in towns. If there is any doubt of this duty being with the Home Office, we have the newly-constituted County Authority, the County Council, which, in my humble judgment, is the body to have this control and management. There are provisions in the Local Government Act that transfer certain duties from the Privy Council to the County Council, and although I do not believe the Privy Council has this power now, yet obviously it was within the intention of the framers of the Local Government Act that cognate powers should be transferred from the Central to the Local Authority. I object, then, to this particular Amendment of the Lords on the ground that it is not germane to the general provisions of the Bill, and is directed to remedy evils that do not arise purely out of agricultural occupations, and also because not the Board of Agriculture, but the Home Office, or the County Council, is the proper authority to have control in this matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I wish at once to answer my hon. Friend with reference to the argument which practically amounts to this, that the Privy Council does not possess the power now, and therefore it should not be transferred to the new department together with other control under the Contagious Diseases Animals Act. My hon. Friend must have failed to observe that within the last few days the Privy Council have issued an Order for the muzzling of dogs from the 1st of August, which proves conclusively that the Privy Council does possess that authority which the Lords by their Amend-

  1817
  ment would transfer. The chief question is really what authority should be charged with the duty of issuing regulations for the prevention of the spread of the dangerous malady rabies. The question is whether a Government Department should have power to issue orders and prescribe regulations which will have to be carried out by the Local Authority. That power the Privy Council now possess, it is not vested in the Home Office, or in the Local Government Board, and will not exist at all unless the Board of Agriculture is charged with it.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I think, speaking for the part of the country with which I am acquainted, and not for towns, that the clause will be very valuable, enabling the Local Authorities to deal with a large number of stray dogs that do much harm to our flocks and, herds. At present the Authorities have practically no power to stop these ravages, but the Department will issue just the regulations that are required.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.

  FACTORS BILL [LORDS] (No. 310.)
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in order that a clause may be inserted to provide that the Act shall not extend to Scotland."—(The Attorney General.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause (Limitation of the Act), read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES NOTIFICATION BILL. (No. 293.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): This Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move, has been for some time printed, and I think it speaks for itself. The design of the Bill is to extend what
  1818
  is practically the law in many of our large towns to the whole country. I may say the provisions of the Bill are practically enforced by local Acts in 52 towns throughout the country, comprising a population of no less than 3½ millions. If any other town desires to adopt the same provisions, the present process is for the Authorities to introduce a Bill, a process which, as hon. Gentlemen know, is attended with considerable expenditure of money and trouble. That the provisions are good in themselves I think is proved by the fact of 52 large towns having availed themselves of the opportunity of applying them. The extension of the provisions contained in this Bill has been recommended strongly by the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, by the Royal Commission of 1882, by many Local Authorities throughout the country, and a large number of Medical Officers of Health, who have represented to the Local Government Board that their difficulties in connection with the preservation of health in their districts are very great owing to the absence of notification of the outbreak of infectious disease. It is clear that the Sanitary Authorities are thus placed at a great disadvantage in taking timely measures to prevent the spread of diseases such as are referred to in the Bill. With a view to legislation on the subject, the Local Government Board in 1887 addressed communications to the Authorities of all the towns where notification is carried out, and received absolutely unanimous testimony in reply in favour of the system, which is represented to work smoothly and efficiently. If the Bill is assented to, if these powers are conferred, the procedure will be that notification will set the Medical Officer of Health and the Inspector of Nuisances in motion at once. They will visit the house from which notification has been received to insure that due care is taken to prevent the spread of disease, by means of isolation, or, if that is impossible, by means of removal of the patient to hospital. That removal is not compulsory. We do not give powers of forcible removal, but it will be the duty of the Health Authorities to use such influence as they can in order to obtain the removal of a patient to a hospital where all precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of dis-

  1819
  ease. Proper disinfection will then be applied to the house from which the patient is removed. Where it is necessary, the Local Authorities will communicate with school managers, with the managers of public institutions, such as free libraries, &c., giving such information as will conduce to prevention of the spread of disease. We found that it was extremely useful also in enabling the Local Authorities to trace the source of disease, and to attack it without delay. For instance, there was one borough in which there were no less than 30 cases of typhoid fever notified to the Local Authority, and the Medical Officer of Health not only took precautions with reference to the cases, but set to work at once to find out how it was that the disease had attacked so many persons. The whole of the cases were traced to one particular source, and the Authorities were able to prevent the outbreak assuming greater dimensions. In another case where scarlatina was notified, all the cases were traced to a particular school, where a child suffering from scarlatina in the peeling state was mixing with the scholars. But for this notification the outbreak would, in all probability, have assumed very large and startling dimensions. The Government propose that the notification shall be compulsory in London, but that outside London it shall be optional for the Local Authorities to adopt the Act by Resolution. To make the Act compulsory at once on Urban and Rural Authorities all over the Kingdom might create some amount of friction; but if it be found that Local Authorities are slow to adopt the Act, it may be necessary for Parliament to consider whether it should not be made compulsory. With reference to London, it is perfectly obvious that the same course cannot be adopted, because London is controlled by a very large number of Local Authorities, and it could not be contemplated with satisfaction for a moment that the Local Authority in one part of London might adopt the Act, while a Local Authority in another part of London might not adopt it. There are other considerations in connection with a town of the enormous dimensions of London which render it desirable that in the Metropolis the provisions of the Act should be obligatory on the
  1820
  Local Authorities. The diseases which it is proposed to include in the Bill are smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, erysipelas, scarlatina, typhoid, and relapsing fever; but the Bill also contains a provision that a Local Authority may, in an emergency, by Resolution approved by the Local Government Board, include some diseases other than the diseases mentioned. I refrain from dwelling, as I might at length, on the obvious advantages which will unquestionably result from placing the authority charged with the health of the inhabitants in possession of the information necessary to enable it properly to carry out its duties. I can quite understand that there may be objections to one or other details in the Bill. But I cannot believe that objections from any quarter will be urged against the principle of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): May I ask if the Bill extends to Ireland?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, it does not; but I have not the least objection to take measures, if hon. Gentlemen desire, to insure its extension to Ireland.
  SIR W. FOSTER: This is a most important Bill from the point of view both of the Local Authorities and the public; but I think it right to point out that there are many people among the industrial classes who view with great jealousy interference of this kind, which they believe would soon lead to the removal of all persons suffering from infectious diseases into hospitals. There is certainly no provision of that kind in the Bill, but that is thought likely by many to be the result of such legislation. On this account there is a good deal of objection to the Bill in certain quarters. I mention this in order that Members of the House generally may know the views of people outside with reference to the Bill. But, looking at it from another point of view, I must confess that I have a good deal of sympathy with the object of the Bill. I think it necessary that we should endeavour as far as we can to stamp out the diseases which this Bill contemplates stamping out by means of notification. It is, of course, necessary that all citizens should

  1821
  endeavour as far as possible to check the prevalence of disease, and I think this may be done to a considerable extent by the Notification Clause which the Bill contains; but I have no complete sympathy with the method proposed. The Bill calls upon medical men to perform something more than the ordinary duties of citizenship by requiring them to become informers of the occurrence of diseases. The relation of a medical man to his patient ought to be one of complete confidence, and anything that comes to the knowledge of a medical man in the practice of his profession is practically an inviolable secret; and I do not like any Bill to interfere with that relationship. I know myself that one of the results of this Bill, if passed into law, will be that in scores of cases medical men will not be called in to attend people suffering from infectious diseases. I have known cases of this kind occur in a populous district. The child of a man keeping a small general shop has an infectious disease, the medical attendant notifies it and the Medical Officer of Health sends down his Inspector in the uniform of his class. The result has been that the neighbours are alarmed, and the whole of the poor man's business has fallen off and he has been practically ruined. What is the consequence? Six months or twelve months afterwards the doctor is called in to a case of much graver infectious disease, and the shopkeeper pleads earnestly with the doctor not to notify it or he must go on without any doctor. I think that all the advantages of notification will be obtained if you insist upon the householder or guardian of the patient making the notification. You can also insist upon the medical men giving a certificate to the householder as to the nature of the disease. I admit the difficulty of the position, but I am anxious that no measure should pass into law which will induce the public to keep these diseases more secret than they have been in the past with the risk of adding to the spreading of them. We must be very cautious not to do anything which will prevent the public from placing full and implicit confidence in their medical man. I can quite conceive it to be possible that, if an outbreak of infectious disease occurs in a populous part of London, the people may, in order to prevent exposure,
  1822
  refuse to allow a medical man to come in, and in such a case we shall have tenfold more difficulty than at present. Therefore, while I am anxious to promote the notification of disease, I do not want the Government to adopt any rough and ready method which will be likely to promote rebellion on the part of the public.
  MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.): I wish to inform the right hon. Gentleman how thankfully this Bill will be received by those who have the duties relating to the public health thrown on them. The hon. Member who last spoke has given an instance of a small shopkeeper, and has said how hard it would fall upon him to have the doctor compelled to notify the outbreak of infectious diseases on his premises. But I would point out that those are just the cases which this Bill is designed to meet—cases in which an infectious disease breaks out amongst the children of a village shopkeeper, and is spread from family to family in consequence of the reluctance of the householder to make known the fact that the disease is in his house. Sometimes a whole village school may become infected through the absence of proper notification, and this is particularly the case with measles. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board does not propose to include measles in the Bill, for nothing is worse than to have an outbreak of that malady in a village school. I am prepared for the opposition of medical gentlemen to this Bill. The hon. Member who last spoke would throw on the householder the duty of reporting the outbreak of infectious disease; but we know that the householder does not report in such cases. We know that he is too often apt to allow his children to run about the streets, in spite of the fact that there is an infectious disease on his premises, especially if the disease is of a mild type, though we know that a person having an infectious disease of a mild type may communicate it to another person, who may have it in such a severe form as to cause death. Very often, when measles and scarlet fever occur, if the cases are mild, the parents of the sick children refuse to call in a doctor, preferring to treat the maladies themselves and to take their chance; and

  1823
  those are the cases we want to deal with. In a local sanitary district with which I am connected, I caused a circular to he sent to all the doctors, asking for information in regard to the outbreak of infectious diseases, and they all refused to give it, and I was told that it was only natural that they should refuse to give such information voluntarily. I would, therefore, make it compulsory. To make the Bill really useful throughout the country I would make it obligatory to put the measure in force in rural districts as well as in towns.
  MR. SEXTON: I agree that the subject dealt with in this Bill is one of great importance; and, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my inquiry just now, I will consult with my Colleagues in the interval between now and the Committee stage, to take their opinion as to whether or not it would be desirable that the Bill should apply to Ireland. I understand, both from the text of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that this is to be an enabling measure. But with regard to the diseases not named in the Bill there is a peculiar qualification of the enabling principle. The Bill says that, before proceeding to put these powers in force in regard to diseases not in the measure, the permission of the Local Government Board must be obtained. Well, I must say I fail to understand the reason for that distinction, and I think the Local Authority should have the same power in the one case as in the other. Also, it seems to me peculiar that if the Local Authorities, who are empowered to put the Act in operation, desire to discontinue the exercise of these powers, they should be obliged to come to the Local Government Board for permission to do so. I think the provisions of the Bill indefensible in those two particulars, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure to consider them very carefully before the Committee stage.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: The speech of the Lord Mayor of Dublin would have been a very effective one if the Bill applied to Ireland. I wish to urge on the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of treating the Authorities in London as having the interests of the community at heart quite as much as the
  1824
  Local Authorities in urban districts round London and all over the country. I can see no earthly reason why London should be treated differently to the country districts, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the Metropolitan Members sitting on this side of the House have constantly urged upon the Government the wisdom of creating one central health authority for the whole of London. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me afraid to take the people of London into his confidence as he does those outside. He says that if he gives London the discretion which under the Bill he allows to urban authorities, it will cause friction; but does he think he will save himself from that friction by making the adoption of the Bill compulsory in London, whilst refraining to render it compulsory over the whole of the country? I could have understood the logical position of the right hon. Gentleman if he had comedown and said, "We have this principle in force in some of our large towns, and we think it necessary to apply it to the whole of the country," but when he tells us—and I do not think he sufficiently demonstrated his reason—that he is afraid of applying this compulsion to the outside districts because it may cause friction, and at the same time that he intends to apply it to London, I think his position is altogether illogical and unsound. I am not sure that the measure will not meet with serious opposition in London, if it is sought to enforce it in its present shape. It may be thought—as the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division has pointed out—that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that eventually it will be sought to compel persons attacked with infectious diseases to be removed from their homes to public hospitals, and, certainly, if that is so, a Bill which would have the effect of leading up to such a state of things is one which requires serious consideration. I cannot help thinking that we have been unfortunate to-day in making such rapid progress with the other business on the Paper, because the result has been that this Bill has come on unexpectedly, and none of the hon. Members who have notices of Amendment down are in their places. At any rate, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure to carefully consider such points as

  1825
  have been raised. Let him have confidence in London—let him rest assured that the people of London will be as ready as the people of any other part of the country to enforce the powers of the Bill if they are for the good of the community; and let him also be satisfied that the way to prevent friction in a matter of this kind is to trust the representatives of the people, locally elected, and to treat all parts of the country alike. If the case of London is made an exception to the general policy of the Bill, the people of London will consider that the right hon. Gentleman does not regard them as having sufficient intelligence to put in force the powers of this measure.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: I hope this Bill will receive general support, and I believe the people of London very generally appreciate its provisions. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said the Sanitary Authorities of London would hardly approve of the provisions of ths Bill. But they have petitioned this House in favour of it. I believe more than half of the Sanitary Authorities of London have petitioned the House in favour of this Bill, and I am satisfied that there is a strong desire for it on the part of the people of London. There is one matter I should like to mention. Most persons are of opinion that the relatives, or the persons in attendance on the patient, and, failing them, the occupier of the house, should be bound to give notification to the Local Authorities, but there is great difficulty in framing a satisfactory definition of the word "occupier." I am informed by those who have had experience in these matters that the Act will fail to reach many of the worst cases, unless the definition of the word occupier is somewhat extended. I only mention the point that the right hon. Gentleman may, before the Bill reaches the Committee stage, consider how far he can meet the views of the Local Authorities.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I think the difficulties felt may be very easily overcome if the duty is first placed on the householder of informing the Health Authority of the outbreak of disease of an infectious character, and secondly, and only secondly, on the medical practitioner in attendance on the
  1826
  case. I think it would be wrong in the first instance to place that duty on the medical attendant. It is quite right that the duty should be performed by some one, but it seems to me that it ought first to be performed by the householder or some one responsible in the household, and that is so provided in this Bill; but where the difficulty arises is that the duty is also at once thrown upon the medical attendant. That might be overcome by requiring the medical practitioner to go to the head of the household and giving him a certificate stating the nature of the disease, and drawing attention to the sub-section in which the duty to notify is first cast upon the householder. If he neglects his duty, then the duty would be thrown upon the medical officer. I think medical men would have a just grievance if the duty were thrown upon them in the way proposed by the Bill. But they could have no grievance if they were only required to give the householder a certificate that the disease was infectious and required him to give notice; or, if the householder neglected to do his duty, that the medical practitioner himself should give notice to the Local Authority. If an Amendment to that effect were introduced in Committee, the Bill, which is a very valuable one in other respects, might fairly be accepted.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I am anxious to state that those who object to the 5th section of the 32nd clause of the Bill do so in the interest of the public health. They believe that the proposal would add to the danger which at present exists. If the right hon. Gentleman would promise to consider the position of the medical profession, I think the Bill might go through without opposition. The case of the village shopkeeper, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Llewellyn) referred, is just a case in point where the medical man should not have thrown upon him the responsibility of being a private informer. A breach would be made in the relations of the medical practitioner and the family he attends, and constant distrust would be created which would lead to medical aid being dispensed with, and so result in a very serious growth of infectious diseases. I hope the right hon.

  1827
  Gentleman will consider the inclusion of a disease of which I do not know the medical name, but which is known as German measles, and which I am informed is a serious kind of disease not infrequently fatal. One other observation. Those of us who are opposed to compulsory vaccination feel that the true alternative is to fall back upon a safeguard like this. I do not, however, regard the question of compulsory vaccination from a medical but from a political point of view. I am opposed to interference between the parent and a healthy child. But the moment that child becomes a centre of infectious disease, I do not know where I would stop, even if it should result in the compulsory conveyance of members of a household to the hospital and separating them from all the comforts which are supposed to be associated with home. I cordially support the Motion for the Second Reading.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think this a most valuable Bill, but I think the objection which has been raised as to the medical profession, and which is felt very strongly in the country, is worthy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Bill will be doubly valuable if it enlists the co-operation of the medical profession throughout the country, but if the duty is first cast upon the medical attendant to give notice, it may lead to distrust among patients. Should it not be left to the medical attendant to give a certificate to the person in charge of the patient requiring him to give notice to the authorities?
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I concur with what has been said by the hon. Member behind me with regard to London. I quite believe that if this Bill were left optional to the authorities in London it would be applied as much in the Metropolis as in the country. I am afraid if it is made compulsory upon London it will prejudice the consideration of the matter in the eyes of the Metropolis. Londoners have a great objection to being too much interfered with, and I cannot help thinking, anxious as I am that the Bill should be applied to London, that my right hon. Friend would do well to consider the suggestion that London should be treated in the same way as the rest of the country. He did
  1828
  not object to the Bill being compulsory, but in that case the compulsion should be general.
  MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen): This is a Bill of very great importance, and as a number of hon. Members who are interested in it are not present, it would be a more convenient course to adjourn the Debate. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  MR. RITCHIE: Hon. Members who were interested in a matter such as this might be fairly expected to be down by half-past three o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon when the Bill is on the Paper. Yesterday I communicated with the Gentlemen who have given notice of their intention to move the rejection of the Bill, intimating my desire to know what their objections to it might be. One of them very frankly replied that he had no views upon the subject at all. Looking to the fact that the opinion of those who have spoken in the House have been altogether unanimous in favour of the general principle of the Bill, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: Considerable pressure has been put upon me in regard to another investigation which is now going on, and which is considered to have a bearing upon the present Bill. I thought it was one of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman might well consider, because no doubt that investigation relates to a class of infectious diseases which this Bill does not touch. Having been considering another class of infectious diseases only a few minutes ago, I find myself in considerable difficulty in entering upon a discussion which I had not anticipated.
  MR. RITCHIE: I would point out to the hon. Member in reference to the other investigation to which he alludes, that those who were opposed to vaccination are the strongest supporters of this Bill.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the suggestion I have thrown out?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR W. FOSTER: I wished to explain that I do not care to vote for the adjournment of the Debate, and if an opportunity of indicating the nature of his reply were afforded to the right hon. Gentleman, it might guide others in voting.
  The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 187.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG, Wilts,): Mr. Speaker, I must first express the gratification of Her Majesty's Government at the tone of the Debate in all quarters of the House. What objections there are are directed more to points of detail than to the general principle of the Bill. At the same time, I am instructed by the President of the Local Government Board to give hon. Gentlemen some information on the points they have raised. In the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkestone Division of Derbyshire, he urges, in the first place, that there may be jealousy on the part of the industrial classes as to interference with their domestic freedom. I think it is essential, in the interests of the working classes, that a Bill of this nature should be carried; and even if it did, in some degree, hurt their feelings, the good which would be derived by the prevention of the spread of infectious disease would overwhelm any annoyance or objections of that description. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the medical man's position will be a very difficult one, and he contended that nothing should be done by Parliament to interfere with the confidential relations between the medical man and his patient. I think the House and the country ought to hesitate a long time before they allow any consideration of that kind, deserving of attention though it be, to interfere with necessary precautions in defence of the public health. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman whether, under the present system, it is not his practice, when he knows of an infectious disease in the house of a patient, to make the fact more or less known. The main objection is that we are placing the medical profession in a peculiarly unfair position, and the hon. Member asks that the duty should be
  1830
  thrown on the householder, and not on the medical man. He says his experience leads him to believe that if this unpleasant duty, as he calls it, is thrown on the medical man, the medical man will not be sent for. That is a matter which can only be tested by practice. We have, at all events, this on our side—that in the 52 towns where similar precautions to those contained in that Bill have hitherto been in force, householders have not only not been deterred from calling in medical assistance, but the origin of disease has been traced and its spread arrested. It has also been said by the hon. Member that a medical man ought not to be called upon to proclaim to the world that a small tradesman has disease in his house, because when the fact becomes known the tradesman may suffer loss in his business. But the fear of such a loss would surely operate on the mind of the small tradesman himself if it were thrown upon him alone to notify the outbreak of disease in his house, and he might be induced to hide the fact. Therefore, my right hon. Friend cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to relinquish that part of the Bill which imposes the double duty on the householder and also on the medical man, because if the householder alone has to make the notification, and there is default on his part, the provisions of the Bill will be weakened and its successful working seriously imperilled. It has been suggested that the measure should be extended to other diseases, and that German measles in particular should be included within its scope. The Government will not object to consider in Committee any legitimate addition to the list of diseases to which the Bill applies. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands) has urged that London should be placed on exactly the same footing as the rest of the country in this matter; but the position of London is absolutely distinct from that of any other part of the country. In large towns the Corporation is the Sanitary Authority for the entire area of the town, and the regulations, if adopted at all, will at once be enforced over the whole of it. But in the Metropolis the case is different. There we have a large number of Sanitary Authorities, and if the provisions of the Bill are adopted by only one-half or two-thirds of them, and

  1831
  not by them all, the good effect of the measure will obviously be defeated or greatly impaired. Therefore, the Government cannot consider any proposal not to make the Bill compulsory for London. We should be much more inclined to adopt a suggestion for making it compulsory over the whole country. Any suggestion of the kind will be a fitting subject for discussion when we reach the stage of Committee. With regard to the remarks of the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton), it should be borne in mind that the diseases specified in the Act of Parliament stand on a different footing from those to which Local Authorities may wish to apply the regulations without any reference to superior authority. I may say I think the hon. Member for Finsbury has hardly realised that Petitions in favour of some such measure as this have been presented by half the Vestries and District Boards in London. That hardly looks as if the measure is regarded with any feeling of hostility by the people of London generally. I have only once again to say how grateful we are for the considerate and practical way in which this measure has been discussed, and how earnestly I hope it may be passed in the interests of the public health.
  MR. STOREY: I represent a town which a few years ago adopted such a law as is now proposed by this Bill. At the time we adopted it all these old-fashioned objections which have been expressed in the House this afternoon were brought up against the proposal. We have now had experience, which is the best teacher in these matters. In Sunderland there is not, and never has been, since the first three or four months, any jealousy at all on the part of the householders against it. Our population is much in favour of individual liberty. We object to law, and have as little to do with it as possible. If we could live under the old dispensation, when every man did what was right in his own eyes, we should be the first to do it, and if there is any town in the country that would resent any interference with public liberty, it would be ours. The Bill has recognised that this notification of diseases is a good thing. We have had bitter experience in our town of the spread of contagious diseases through our not having
  1832
  had the means of laying our hands upon it in the early days. The town once lost 2,000 lives from an attack of small pox introduced by a ship that entered the port; and the Municipal Authorities afterwards came to Parliament for a private Act which gave powers analogous to those contained in this Bill. Those powers have worked admirably. There is no jealousy whatever on the part of the householders in regard to them, the people recognising the advantage arising from them. One of the doctors at first thought it unfair to call upon him to reveal the existence of disease in the households of his patients. We settled that doctor. We arranged that every doctor who made a notification should receive a fee. Although I admit, as a rule, doctors care more about doing good than about fees, still, like other people, they like fees. They represented that the fee we offered was not quite enough. We gave them a little more. Their objection to reporting has entirely disappeared, and they work most willingly with the medical officers- The Act has worked admirably in Sunderland, and has been a great blessing to us, and as far as our experience has yet gone, we have diminished the quantity of infectious disease in our midst by the judicious carrying out of the Act. I shall be willing to support an Amendment to extend the compulsory operation of this Bill to the whole of the country.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.): In Edinburgh we obtained an Act of this kind some 10 years ago, and the duty of notification is placed on the medical officer alone. When the measure was first proposed for adoption by Edinburgh, a certain jealousy was expressed by the medical men, but as soon as it came into operation that jealousy disappeared, and it has now been in operation for 10 years, with the full and cordial approbation of the whole of the medical profession of Edinburgh. The operation of the measure imposes upon the rates of the City something like £1,000 to £2,000 a year, and no complaint whatever has been made against the expenditure of that sum of money, whilst the inhabitants in the poorer parts of the City give every assistance to the medical officer in the carrying out of the Act. As to the benefits we in Edinburgh have de-

  1833
  rived from it, I can confirm most absolutely the expressions used by the hon. Member for Sunderland. Medical officers have stated to me that at least two outbreaks of small-pox were stamped out in consequence of the observance of these provisions. We have enormously diminished the death rate of the City, but the enumeration of diseases in Edinburgh is somewhat wider than that provided for in the Bill; measles, for instance, is included in our list. I am convinced that if an Act of this sort is once put into operation in large communities it will not fail to receive the support and co-operation of the people. I sincerely hope the Bill may pass, and be given full application.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I would not have interposed in this Debate but for the fact that I was one of the Members of the House who sat upon the Committee to whom this question was referred seven years ago. I am very glad to find that even now, after this long interval, the recommendation of that Committee is at least being brought before the House so far as general legislation is concerned. We had a large number of private Bills referring to the notification of diseases before us, and we reported that we had little difficulty in forming an opinion that the time had arrived when provisions of law on this subject might be sanctioned, at least in the most important urban districts. We had before us the experience of Sunderland and Edinburgh, and, I think, of some 23 or 24 other places which had adopted these provisions. We submitted to the House clauses which were drawn by very competent authority, and, indeed, the question received our most anxious consideration. We heard the evidence from the medical officers' point of view, and we came to the conclusion that it should be the duty of the occupier of the house to give notice, and that it should also be the duty of the medical man to give notice, and we recommended a uniform fee—a very moderate one. I am bound to say, in justice to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster), that in Nottingham there was very strong objection on the part of the medical men to this clause, and Parliament was induced to modify the clause so as to compel the medical men only to
  1834
  give notice to the head of the family. Certainly, if I were called upon to vote again, I should vote as I did in 1882. I should vote for the proposal of the Government—namely, to make the notification compulsory upon the medical men; because, although I quite appreciate the natural jealousy of a medical man in the matter of being compelled to disclose that which comes to him in a confidential and professional capacity, I think the enormous preponderance of evidence is in favour of notification by medical men. I hope the Bill will pass. We are all agreed that if this is a good thing for Manchester, Nottingham, Huddersfield, and Sunderland, it is a good thing for the rest of the kingdom. I strongly urge that the Bill should be read a second time, because in Committee we shall have full opportunity of discussing the clauses and arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: As I put down a notice of opposition to this Bill, I desire to say that I only did so in order to secure a proper discussion of the measure. We have seen that the President of the Local Government Board has tried to rush the Bill through after half past 5 o'clock on a Wednesday evening, and more than once after midnight. I venture to think that is hardly the course for the Government to pursue in regard to a Bill of this character. I think the President will allow the discussion this afternoon has been a most useful one, and it is due to our having secured a proper interval for discussion. Having said this, I do not for a moment wish to delay the passing of the Bill.
  COLONEL GUNTER (Yorkshire, W.R. Barkstone Ash): I should like to give my experience as Chairman of a Board of Guardians and a Sanitary Board. It is that although people who are suffering from infectious diseases may not go into the streets, other people may go into the houses where the disease is, and in consequence spread it all around. We had in our district an outbreak of scarlet fever. As the Sanitary Board we did all we could to prevent it spreading, but we found great difficulty in doing so. The fever broke out in a village where there was a large number of Irish people who would insist upon waking the children and others who died. It was with the

  1835
  utmost difficulty we stamped out the disease.
  MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.): I think this Bill will be very valuable when it is made compulsory all through. Having had many years' experience of the working of the Public Health Act, I can testify to the fact that thousands of lives have been saved, and are being saved, every year by a careful observance of the Public Health Acts as regards infectious diseases. I want upon this occasion to make the application of the Act universal. In Aberdeen we have really two burghs in one Parliamentary burgh. Each burgh has its own way of carrying out the law, a fact which does not tend to a satisfactory end. The more uniform the administration of the law can be made, so much more effective will it become. I trust the President of the Local Government Board will introduce a clause which will make the administration of the law uniform.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I should like to know whether it is intended that under Clause 7 the existence of syphilis will have to be notified.
  MR. RITCHIE: It has never been intended that that disease should come under the Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PASSENGER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS.] (No. 327.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL [LORDS.] (No. 352.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1, Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "ordained," to insert the words—
  "And which shall within eighteen months after the passing of this Act have been entered in the register of marriages in the territory in which they have been solemnised, in accordance with the law or usage for the time being in force in such territory."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I have considered the point raised last night by my hon. and learned Friend, and I think it is desirable there should be some fixed time in order to prevent marriages solemnised some 20 or 30 years before being rendered valid under this Bill. I would suggest, however, that instead of his Amendment we should insert—
  "And which shall, within two years after the passing of this Act, have been registered at such place, and in such manner as the High Commissioner shall, by proclamation within six months after the passing of the Act, prescribe."
  That, I think, would better meet the object the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I am quite satisfied with the words my hon. and learned Friend suggests, and therefore I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "ordained," to insert the words—
  "And which shall, within two years after the passing of this Act, have been registered at such place, and in such manner as the High Commissioner shall, by proclamation within six months after the passing of the Act, prescribe."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: When I looked at the Act of Fiji it seemed to me the position taken up by my hon. and learned Friend was a reasonable one, but my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron H. de Worms) and myself felt we could not prescribe the mode of registration. I have, therefore, proposed this Amendment in substitution of that of my hon. Friend.
  MR. O. MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.): The Amendment seems a reasonable one, and I hope it will be accepted.
  MR. MOLLOY: Will the Attorney General consent to three years instead of two? I cannot speak for Basutoland, but I know that in other parts of the colonies it is a common occurrence for people in the wild districts not to have any communications for 12 and 18 months at a time. I know of places, even in Australia, where an 18 months' notice would be of no avail.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration. Of course, I am not personally acquainted with the actual character of these colonies, and am glad to receive any practical suggestion. I think it is a very reasonable proposition that the total time should be three years, and I fancy my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) would not object to the alteration.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I have not the slightest objection to three years being allowed instead of two.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 1, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  Question, "That 'two' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'three' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, again proposed.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move the insertion of the words, "with the consent of both parties to the marriage or the survivor of them," after the word "registered." These Validation Acts are very excellent in their object, but this is a peculiarly sweeping measure, because it applies to a territory which formerly did not belong to the British Empire, and it refers to matters which occurred in that territory at a time when it did not belong to the British Empire. It is proposed that anything called marriage which is celebrated by a minister of any denomination duly appointed or ordained shall be rendered valid. I find no distinction drawn between British subjects, when both parties are British subjects, when only one of the parties is a British subject, and when neither party is a British subject. It would be quite within the scope of the Bill that a marriage between two persons, say of French extraction, should be made valid by registration, although that marriage might not be valid according to the law of France. It is given to one of the parties to go within a limited time to register the marriage. Persons who may have gone through some ceremony of marriage in these territories may find themselves married without their consent, and even against their consent. It seems
  1838
  to me there would be no serious practical objection to requiring the consent of both parties to the registration, because if both parties consented no wrong could be done to either of them. And, in the same way, if one of the parties happens to be dead, it would be only reasonable that the survivor alone should have the right to register the marriage.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, by inserting after the word "registered," the words "with the consent of both parties or the survivor of them."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: There is another reason why the Amendment should be accepted, and that is that the Bill does not require any notice of the intention to register to be given by the person registering to the other person of the marriage.
  MR. MOLLOY: I strongly advise the Attorney General not to accept this Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunter) had any knowledge of the kind of life which is led in these wild districts he would not have moved an Amendment of this kind. If you are going to leave it open to one of the parties to refuse to have the marriage registered, you play into the hands of a man who, for instance, having become tired of his wife, wishes to go off and enter into another alliance. By adopting this Amendment you will be really undoing nine-tenths of the good done by the Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I cannot accept the Amendment. We propose that the mode of registration shall be prescribed by the High Commissioner. If there is one question which ought to be dealt with by the Local Authorities, it seems to be such a question as whether or not the marriage should be registered on the application of two or of one of the parties. I can conceive, if we adopted the Amendment, that the Act might be defeated by a person who desired to get rid of his wife.
  MR. HUNTER: I am afraid I must take the sense of the Committee upon this Amendment. The sole point of my suggestion is to prevent a man or

  1839
  woman being married against his or her will.
  The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 199.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
  Amendment proposed, to add after "Commissioner" the words "in South Africa."—(The Attorney General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I had intended to move the insertion of a proviso at the end of the clause, but from an intimation I have received from the Attorney General, it is unnecessary that I should now trouble the House with it. To prevent misunderstanding, however, I will state that my Amendment was for the purpose of providing that no entry should be permitted in the register without 21 days' notice to both parties; but as the Attorney General has privately promised that the point shall be raised by the Chief Commissioner, I will not trouble the House with the Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 316.)
  Considered in Committee.
  In the Committee.
  Clause 1.
  MR. STEPHENS: I think the Committee will allow it is very inconvenient, to say the least of it, that this Bill, which so largely affects the liberty of a considerable number of Her Majesty's subjects, should have arrived at this stage without having been considered at all by the House. Of course, I am precluded from going into the general principle now; but I will call attention to the very great hardship that under this clause will be inflicted upon a number of persons poor and feeble in position, and which to them will be absolutely crushing. They will be quite unable to cope with such an intricate mass of regulations as this Bill will demand, and the effect will be to force these people from a healthy, harmless country life, into
  1840
  our overcrowded towns, where they are not at all wanted, and where, as hon. Members will be aware, it will be impossible for them to earn their living. From living an open country life they will be transferred to conditions of existence for which they are unfitted, and which they cannot long endure. Why should not people be allowed to live in movable dwellings? At this time of year certainly it is a very pleasant form of residence, and I think at least they are as much entitled to be free from interference as the people who choose to live in house boats. With regard to this section, the owner of a movable dwelling is required to make application to the County Authority, but the Clause does not say to what authority, but I take it to be another duty added to the already overladen County Council. I have myself brought to the notice of the Local Government Board the great difficulties the County Councils have in coping with the mass of intricate matter suddenly devolved upon them, and here is a new and perfectly unnecessary duty pressed upon them, and more machinery, not indicated, must be brought into play. We shall presently have to deal with the educational and sanitary provisions of the Bill, but first, there is this section directed to the suppression of the mode of life these people follow. These moving vans carry goods from village to village, and are really co-operative stores for the service of village life. We all know that in some of the small villages there is only a single shop, the owner of which exercises a tyrannical monopoly, which the competition of these travelling stores serves in some degree to check. I am sure that persons unable from age or infirmity, or want of time to go to the county town, find these vans a very great boon. I do not for a moment think that any Member of the House will be moved to support the Bill on account of the peculiar ideas upon sporting rights these persons who live in movable dwellings are commonly supposed to entertain. I believe that will not prejudice the persons whom this Bill affects, but that every Member will take his course in regard to the Bill uninfluenced by these considerations. I have no doubt that hon. Members who promote this Bill are not

  1841
  very jealous of any little trespass upon lands these persons may commit. The clause requires the owner to register his movable home, and inflicts a penalty of 20s. for every day the van happens to be used without being registered. This is, I think, a too severe and drastic a penalty for such an offence, and to be inflicted upon people who are unable to protect themselves; and, therefore, I move to substitute 2s. 6d. for 20s.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I have an Amendment to propose which would come before that, and one to which I think no objection will be taken. The words in the clause are "apply to a county authority." I do not suppose that it is intended that the application should be made to any County Authority other than that of the county where the van happens to be; and, therefore, I propose as a preliminary to stating this in so many words to leave out "a" and insert "the."
  Amendment proposed, line 8, leave out second "a," and insert "the."
  MR. BURT: I think I may accept that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed (Mr. Tomlinson), after the word "authority," insert "in the jurisdiction of which the movable dwelling happens for the time being to be."
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I should like to ask my hon. Friend in charge of this Bill whether he has considered what the County Authority is to which reference is to be made. I find, looking at the Interpretation Clause, Section 13, that the term County Authority includes Commissioners of Supply and County Councils for counties or for boroughs that are counties in themselves. Well, it seems to me there is, in the first place, the objection that County Councils are not always sitting, and I think it would be better that reference should be made to some officer of the County Council who could always be go at, and from whom the necessary regulations could be obtained. I do not offer this observation in opposition to the Bill, but in order to make it more useful.
  MR. BURT: I labour under the disadvantage of scarcely having heard a single word of the hon. and learned
  1842
  Gentleman's remarks, and, therefore, I have no answer to make.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. STEPHENS: I now beg to move the Amendment I have already indicated, to read, "two and sixpence" after "not exceeding," in line 18, instead of "twenty shillings." The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton has pointed out a difficulty in fixing any authority with the duty, and, in fact, it will have to be handed over to an official who will be very little under the direct control of the representative authority, and will be far more under the influence of residents and landlords of the neighbourhood. It is, therefore, all the more incumbent upon us to be careful to prevent anything like injustice and even cruelty in the exercise of this delegated authority. In any case, as we ourselves know, it is difficult to appeal against the harsh exercise of such authority, and especially so in the case of these persons, who are very poor and have to earn a precarious living. The more I consider the Bill the more I am struck with its crudeness of construction, and the more I regret that it has not been subjected to a free discussion.
  It being half-past Five, further proceedings were suspended.

  INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION BILL. (No. 295.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of the Accounts of the Metropolitan Water Companies for the year ended 31st day of December, 1888.
  Of the estimated Population of the Districts supplied by each of the Metropolitan Water Companies.
  Of the approximate quantity of Water supplied daily by each for domestic and for other purposes.
  Of the Revenue, so far as it can be ascertained, derived from Water supplied for domestic and for other purposes.
  Of the quantity of Water supplied by each per person for domestic purposes.
  Of the gross Income received per one thousand gallons.
  And, of the Charges authorised to be made by each Company (in the form and in continu-

  1843
  ation of Parliamentary Papers, No. 193, of Session (2) 1880, No. 129, of Session 1882, and No. 418, of Session 1888."—(Mr. Firth.)

  REVENUE, 1888–9.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of all Taxes and Imposts from which the Imperial Revenue of the United Kingdom was raised, together with the Gross Revenue, in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1889, with the Cost and Charge of collecting the same, under each Head, these Charges being deducted, and leaving the net amount of Revenue.
  And, of the Aggregate Revenue collected in each of the previous ten years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 271, of Session 1888.)—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Returns presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (LIST OF ESTATES).
Return ordered—
"Of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, virtute officii, in the year ended the 31st day of December 1888."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297]
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.