Lords Sitting of 19 March 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Increase of Episcopate* (51).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Poor (45).
Committee—Duty on Dogs* (42).
Report—Traffic Regulation Metropolis (46 & 52); Duty on Dogs* (42).
Withdrawn—Railway Traffic Protection (43).

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL—(No, 45.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
METROPOLITAN POOR BILL—(No, 45.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the objects of the measure were three-fold—first, to provide for the sick poor, both outdoor and indoor, within the metropolitan area, for the insane and other classes of the inmates of workhouses, better accommodation than they at present enjoyed;

  103
  secondly, to assimilate the powers and duties of guardians in certain parishes under local Acts to those of guardians acting under the general law; and thirdly, to provide for the equalization of certain charges over the whole metropolis; and for other purposes relating to the relief of the poor within the metropolis. The evils which the Bill was intended to remedy might be classed under two heads—first, the inadequate, inefficient, and ill-managed accommodation for the sick in the metropolitan workhouses; and secondly, the want in many of those workhouses of a sufficient and well-trained staff of nurses. That the accommodation for the sick in workhouses should be exceedingly bad was hardly to be wondered at when they recollected that at the first introduction of the Poor Law Amendment Act it was hardly at all contemplated that the sick and infirm should be received within the walls of the workhouses, which were mainly intended as places for able-bodied paupers. But as years passed on the law was so administered that the workhouses became, to a great extent, hospitals for the sick and infirm. A paper which he held in his hand showed that in 1865 no less than 25 per cent of the inmates of all the metropolitan workhouses were sick and infirm, and that this was considerably above the average throughout the country; and when they considered the great number of cases of this kind which were continually received into the metropolitan workhouses, it was easy to understand how the amount of accommodation was inadequate. From the Return with which the Poor Law Board had been supplied, it appeared that whereas indoor relief in England and Wales amounted to only 14 per cent upon all cases, in the metropolis it rose as high as 27 per cent. He was happy to be able to acknowledge that in many cases within the metropolis well-considered, judicious, and philanthropic provision had been made by Boards of Guardians for the accommodation of the sick and infirm, and had thus met to some degree the want of sufficient hospital accommodation. But that was not the case throughout. There were many cases in which it would be impossible to provide proper accommodation for want of space, and he feared he must say there were a few in which when motives had been scrutinized the guardians did not show an inclination to provide a remedy for wants which in other districts had been more liberally supplied. Another cause
  104
  which prevented the improvement of the accommodation for the sick was the limitation which applied to the Poor Law Board, as to the amount of money which they could compel the guardians to expend. It was well known to their Lordships that until last year the Poor Law Board could not compel a Board of Guardians in any parish to carry out any alterations, the cost of which would be more than £50. It was thus obviously impossible for the Poor Law Board to provide that any great alterations should take place. Another consideration which pressed upon the Poor Law Board was this. Until a late period the Poor Law Board were advised by competent medical authorities that a space of 500 cubic feet was sufficient for each sick person. Doubts, however, had been thrown upon the correctness of that belief, and in order to solve them, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. That Committee, at the head of which was Sir Thomas Watson, the distinguished President of the College of Physicians, was composed of physicians and surgeons and other gentlemen whose studies and duties had familiarized them with the subject. The Committee reported that not less than 850 cubic feet on an average ought to be allowed to each sick inmate, and in certain offensive cases not less than 1,200; but that in chronic infirm cases, in wards occupied by day as well as by night, 500 cubic feet would be enough; and 300 cubic feet for healthy classes of children. It had been determined, therefore, by the Poor law Board that 850 cubic feet was the minimum which the guardians would be authorized to provide for the sick. But in addition to these general grounds for this measure, there were some special and individual cases which had strongly impressed the Poor Law Board with the necessity of amending the present system. He referred to the cases of Timothy Daley, who died in the Holborn Workhouse on the 23rd of December, 1864, and that of Richard Gibson, who died in the workhouse of St. Giles and St. George. In consequence of the complaints which had been made with respect to these cases, inquiries were held by Poor Law Inspectors, and the result proved not only the allegations of personal neglect in these particular cases, but that also the sick wards in these hospitals were insufficient and ill-arranged; and inquiries that subsequently took place into the management

  105
  of the Paddington Workhouse showed in that case also that the staff of nurses was Insufficient, and the provision for the sick and the medical arrangements generally unsatisfactory. In speaking of the investigations carried on by paid officers of the Poor Law Board, he would not be doing his duty if he passed over without acknowledgment the services rendered by professional and scientific gentlemen connected with The Lancet, who, at the cost of much valuable time and money, visited the workhouses of the metropolis, and supplied the Poor Law Board from time to time with most material facts in reference to their condition. The result of the information thus collected was the appointment of Mr. Farnall and Dr. Smith to make a special investigation into the state of the wards in the workhouses, and their Report, though differing in other respects, agreed in this—that the wards were overcrowded, and that the general arrangements for the sick were very unsatisfactory. Shortly after his right hon. Friend Mr. Gathorne Hardy) came into office, two other Inspectors were appointed to make inquiry, not merely into the state of the sick wards, but, into the general accommodation in the metropolitan workhouses. These gentlemen were instructed to take as the basis of their judgment the opinion given with respect to the amount of cubic feet. Having made a careful inquiry, the Inspectors came to this conclusion—that in twenty-four unions and parishes the existing workhouses were such that by partial re-construction they might be made adequate to the necessities of the case; but with respect to the remaining fifteen, the greater number of them were not capable of being made suitable to the purposes for which they were required. Sufficient proof had therefore been brought forward to show that the Poor Law Board had ample grounds for adopting some comprehensive measures for the improvement of the workhouse infirmaries. With regard to the provision of an efficient and proper nursing staff, the evidence was not less strong. The subject had often engaged the attention of the Poor Law Board, and had been pressed by their Inspectors on the Poor Law Guardians, to whom a circular had been issued and re-issued. It would be improper on such an occasion to omit reference to the improved feeling on the subject which had resulted from the admiration the country must feel for the exertions of that excellent and gifted
  106
  woman, Miss Nightingale, whose name would always be received with that respect which was due to her Christian activity and self-devotion. Contemporaneously with her labours, the ill-arrangement of the sick wards of the workhouses, and the want of a proper nursing staff, had pressed themselves on the Poor Law Board as matters requiring attention; and the available remedies seemed to be additional buildings; increase of staff, and greater means of classification. The first consideration that presented itself to the Poor Law Board, on reviewing the question, was that there were no fewer than thirty-nine different areas of taxation within the metropolis, fifteen of these being unions under Boards of Guardians, and fourteen parishes under the general law; while no less than ten were governed by guardians elected in different ways by vestrymen. The obvious conclusion that pressed itself on the Board was that it was absolutely necessary to create new and larger districts in order to carry out the remedies that were proposed. Having thus adverted to the evils which it, was sought to remedy, and the reasons of introducing Poor Law Board for introducing the measure, he would proceed to call attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. Three Committees which had inquired into the subject had stated in their Reports that the extension of the power of the Poor Law Board over local guardians was necessary. The Bill therefore gave power to the Poor Law Board to provide asylums for the reception and relief of the sick, insane, or infirm poor; to combine unions or parishes, or unions and parishes into districts, to constitute bodies of managers partly elected and partly nominated, with powers to erect new buildings, purchase lands, and borrow money. It was further provided that the appointment and duties of the officers were to be determined by the managers; but their salaries were to be determined by the Board. Auditors were to be appointed, and might be removed at the pleasure of the Board. In the provision for the application of the asylums, the words were very general, and included fever, small pox, and lunatics. There was also a provision for the establishment of dispensaries to afford outdoor medical relief, with a committee of management and the necessary officers. The medicines were to be provided by the Board of Guardians, in order to secure that they should be of the best description. The next clause to which he would call attention way, that very

  107
  important one which provided for the establishment of a general metropolitan fund, to which all unions and parishes were to contribute, and out of which would be made the disbursements required by the purposes of this Act. The question of the equalization of all the metropolitan rates had for years been under consideration both in and out of the House. The equalization of metropolitan rates involved grave and serious considerations; but, stopping short of that, there remained a middle course, which he thought the Poor Law Board had properly decided to adopt—namely, to take certain charges, and make them payable equally over the whole of the metropolis. The charges proposed to be thrown on this common fund were—first, the maintenance of lunatics in the asylums, and licensed houses for the insane poor; secondly, the maintenance of the patients in the asylums for patients suffering from fever or small pox; thirdly, for the medicine and attendance supplied for the relief of the poor; fourthly, salaries of all officers employed in the relief of the poor and the management of schools, asylums, and dispensaries; fifthly, for compensation in cases arising under this Act; sixthly, for payment of fees for registration of births and deaths; seventhly, the payment of fees for vaccination; eighthly, the maintenance of pauper children in district or licensed schools; and lastly, for relief of destitute persons under peculiar circumstances. He trusted that when the measure passed into law the effect would be to extend to pauper children an education which would fit them for the duties of their after life. He had thus endeavoured to explain what appeared to him to be the material provisions of this Bill, which came up to their Lordships with the almost unanimous approval of the other House. The measure had been generally approved by his right hon. Friend the late President of the Poor Law Board, and he believed it had commended itself to most of those who were aware of the evils which it sought to remove. He was anxious to say that the Bill was brought forward in no spirit of distrust or jealousy of the local authorities. It was intended to extend the authority of the Poor Law Board no further than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. That harmonious co-operation between the central authority and the local Boards of Guardians, which he was happy to say had hitherto prevailed, would, he trusted, continue to prevail, and would
  108
  show itself in the ready assistance which the Poor Law Board hoped to receive from the guardians in carrying out the provisions of this measure. In the full confidence that the Bill would be beneficial, alike to the poor and to the ratepayers, he now moved that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Devon.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as he had had charge in that House of the Bill relating to the houseless poor in the metropolis, and as he had always taken a great interest in the subject of the Poor Laws, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words in reference to this measure. Speaking of it generally, he must say that he viewed it with unqualified satisfaction. He believed it would lead to the introduction of a much better management of the metropolitan poor than had heretofore existed; he thought, also, that the Bill reflected great credit on the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Department. His noble Friend (the Earl of Devon), in moving the second reading of the Bill, had fully explained its provisions; but he was astonished to hear the remark that the Bill was not framed in consequence of any distrust of the local Boards. It seemed to him, on the contrary, that this Bill was based entirely and properly so based, on that distrust of the Boards of Guardians which experience had shown to be too well founded. The local guardians of the metropolis having disregarded the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board, that Board had very properly brought in a measure to remove the management of the metropolitan poor, to a certain extent, from the local authorities. He therefore thought the Bill was prepared in distrust of the local guardians who had been found wanting. For himself, he regretted that the Bill did not go somewhat further in this direction—although he did not say that it might not be prudent not to make a greater change on the present occasion. He would suggest, however, whether it might not be well worthy of consideration whether they ought not to remove altogether from the guardians the management of the sick poor, and to establish for the sick poor separate infirmaries or hospitals where they might be placed under the management of persons specially qualified for the purpose. Notwithstanding what had been said by his noble Friend, a striking proof of the existence of distrust

  109
  of the local authorities was to be found in the very valuable provisions of the Bill under which the Poor Law Board was enabled to appoint a certain number of ex officio guardians. That provision would enable the Poor Law Board to appoint persons to control the management of the guardians in cases where that management was not satisfactory. He feared, however, it might turn out that notwithstanding the provision for appointing ex officio guardians the poor might not be sufficiently cared for. Another provision of the Bill was one that he regarded as of great importance—that by which the expenses of certain classes of the poor are thrown on the whole metropolis instead of the separate parishes. This extended further the principle introduced into the law by the late President of the Poor Law Board in the Houseless Poor Act. It no doubt infringed the old maxim of each parish meeting its own expenditure. But looking at the peculiar position of the metropolis, at the great wealth accumulated in some districts of it, and at the enormous aggregation of poverty in others, those expenses which were not likely to lead to any abuse ought to be borne by the common fund of the whole metropolis. At the same time, he was glad that the Bill did not carry this principle further, for it would be dangerous to enact that the whole expenses of the poor of this great metropolis should be borne out of a common fund. If that system were adopted the management must necessarily become lax, while the expenses would be greatly augmented. He saw in this Bill another feature which afforded him great pleasure, and that was that Parliament had no longer that extreme jealousy of the Poor Law Board which it had so often evinced. At one time—more than once, he might say—the Poor Law Board had been looked on with such jealousy that it was difficult for them to carry any Bill through Parliament prolonging their existence. He was glad to see that by this Bill the powers of time Board were to be increased. He thought such an increase absolutely necessary for the proper management of the poor. The Poor Law Board which had always discharged its duties with diligence and care, whatever Ministry had been in office, should have the power of enforcing compliance with its orders. Unfortunately, at present they could only do so by mandamus in the Court of Queen's Bench, which was not a very easy or agreeable proceeding. Much as he valued the principle of
  110
  local management, he thought Parliament, had done wisely in saying that a central body should have the necessary power to compel the local authorities to carry out its rules and regulations. He trusted that the powers conferred by this measure would be sufficiently extensive, and in conclusion stated that he cordially supported the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 46.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 46.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHremarked that the effect of Clause 9 (Prohibition of Carriage of Advertisements) would be to throw out of employment about 700 persons who were now earning an honest livelihood by carrying advertisement boards about the street. He admitted that these board men—or "sandwiches" as they had been called—might, in some instances, be a great nuisance, and therefore they ought to be placed under proper control; at the same time, he thought it would be unjust to deprive these men of their means of subsistence. He therefore moved an Amendment to the 9th clause to the effect that no picture, print, board, placard, or notice should be carried or distributed in the streets except in such form and manner as might be approved by the Commissioner of Police.
  Amendment moved, after ("Notice") to insert ("except in such Form and Manner as may be approved of by the Commissioner of Police.")—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl; but if they were inserted, he should move the insertion of other words also, which would prevent the distribution in the streets of papers or posters relating to medical subjects.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the clause was better as it stood.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 16: Majority 8.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Huntingdon, E.

  Romney, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Denbigh, E. [Teller.]

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Harrowby, E. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Bath, M.

  Sydney, V.

  Airlie, E.

  Crewe, L.

  De Grey, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that their Lordships were placed in a rather curious position. He heard other noble Lords had come down prepared to support the measure; but in the division just taken the Government had divided against a clause in their own Bill.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE moved an Amendment prohibiting the exhibition of prints, &c., or the distribution of pamphlets and posters relating to medical subjects in the streets.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsuggested that it should be postponed till the third reading.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREagreed to postpone the Amendment.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 52.)

RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.
(No. 43.)—(The Lord Redesdale.)
RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, when this Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I understood from the noble Lord
  112
  who has charge of the measure (Lord Redesdale) that he would not be unwilling to content himself with the second reading at that time, postponing its further progress to a period when, as we were informed was probable, a measure of a more complete and comprehensive description would be brought under our notice. As, however, the noble Lord has desired that we now should proceed with the Bill, I trust your Lordships will allow me to do what otherwise would not be necessary, to express the very great alarm which I feel at legislation which, as far as I remember, is entirely unprecedented. If this Bill proposed to deal with nothing more than debts contracted by railway companies at a future time, and did nothing more than prevent creditors from issuing executions upon railway property in respect of claims of that description, I should have nothing more to say than this—that it appeared to me a grave and difficult question whether we should allow great mercantile companies to contract debts without incurring the usual responsibility of being subjected, as regards their property, to executions at law. But that is not the nature of the Bill now before your Lordships, by any means. This Bill deals with debts which are already contracted. It takes up the case of creditors who have lent their money or supplied goods to railway companies, and who now are entitled to recover judgment and issue execution against the railway companies; and it absolutely prevents them from issuing execution upon any judgment which they may obtain. That is the operation of the Bill, which at present is limited to the 1st August next. I have always understood that in your Lordships' House one of the most sacred principles was that legislation, as affecting contracts already entered into, should not be retrospective. But this is not the only evil. On looking closely into this measure, I find that, not only does it affect the rights of creditors which already exist, but it raises an invidious distinction between one class of creditors and another. It takes away from one class of creditors the rights which they possess, and to another it preserves those rights intact. If your Lordships will refer to the Bill that you are asked to assent to, you will find that from the operation of the measure are entirely saved those executions that may be levied for the recovery of local rates. And not only so, but from the wording of

  113
  this Bill it would have no operation upon Crown debts: and we all know that very large sums are due from railway companies to the Crown in respect of taxation and other charges on companies. It comes to this, therefore—that for local rates and Crown debts you leave the local and Imperial authorities perfectly free to issue executions against railway companies; while you deprive the creditors who supplied, it may be, the very materials with which the line was made or with which it carries on its business of all means of enforcing their claims. It may be said that the enforcement of their rights is only postponed till August, and that after August the 1st they will be able to enforce their judgments. But when August arrives it is quite possible that the unfortunate creditors may be met with this answer—"No doubt, sufficient property was in existence at the time this Bill passed, but since then that property has been swept away in discharge of local rates and Imperial taxation." What, then, is the reason given why this Bill should be assented to? It is said that it would be of great public utility to save railway companies from executions being levied upon the rolling stock, lest the public traffic should be inconvenienced. That is to say, for a great public object you sacrifice the rights of the private creditor. You desire that a public object should be attained; and, in order to attain, you sacrifice not the rights of the public, who are to be benefited, but the rights of the private creditor, who receives no benefit. I ask your Lordships to observe some of the effects which this Bill will have in depriving creditors of the means of recovering their debts. I take, for example, the very ordinary case of a railway leasing its line to another company on certain terms of yearly or quarterly payments. According to this measure, if the payments in respect of the leased line should be in arrear, the only means of recovering these will be absolutely withdrawn, though the lessees continue to receive the profits of the line. Again, what are your Lordships asked to do with regard to that large and important class of actions arising out of accidents upon railways, either in respect of carelessness in the carriage of goods, or of accidents to limb, possibly to life? We are in the midst of the various assizes of the country, and in the annals of the different circuits we read every morning in the newspapers of consi-
  114
  derable sums recovered against railway companies. The persons who recover those damages are sometimes the parties themselves who have been injured, and are frequently the families of those who have suffered, and who are themselves reduced, it may be, to very great distress and indigence consequent on the sudden withdrawal of their means of support. They have recovered judgment, they are ready to issue execution, they have no means of obtaining the money awarded except through the medium of an execution: and your Lordships are asked to prevent this execution from issuing, at all events till the month of August next, when there may not be monies enough remaining. I will go further. It may have been the fortune or misfortune of some of your Lordships to have had some of your land taken by railway companies. There is an erroneous impression abroad that a railway cannot take land without first paying for it; but your Lordships know that if a railway company desires to take any land it has only to obtain the certificate of any two surveyors as to its value, pay the sum named into court, and then take possession. When the real price of the land is ascertained, however, it generally amounts to twice or thrice the sum paid into court on the certificate of the surveyors, and for that additional price the landowner has to bring an action or obtain a decree in equity to obtain the purchase money. In the meantime the land has been taken, the railway made and earning money upon it; and yet when the landowner issues execution, your Lordships are asked to say that he shall not have his execution in satisfaction of his claim. There is, however, a still stronger case. There is too much reason to suppose that a great portion of the rolling stock at present possessed by the railways of the country is not paid for, but has been supplied on the credit of the company. I hope and believe that in most cases creditors are safe in giving credit; but your Lordships are asked to protect railway companies in the enjoyment of that stock and their earnings by its means, but to cut off from the unpaid creditor, whose rolling stock it is, and for which he has not been paid, the means by which he could recover his money. Who, I ask, is to be benefited by this proposed legislation? Are the shareholders? There may be a railway company so utterly insolvent that it may be a temporary accommodation to it to have

  115
  its rolling stock protected from execution; but the effect on a solvent company will be to go far to destroy its credit. My Lords, every railway company is obliged to have very large supplies of coal and oil, it has to pay for labour, and supply and replace rolling stock. At present solvent railway companies have no difficulty in obtaining all they require on credit, because those persons who supply these goods know perfectly well that when the time comes for payment and their claims are not met that they can at once levy execution and compel payment; but if that right is taken away they will refuse to give credit on the ground that the debenture-holders will sweep away the earnings and they will not consent to make supplies except on the terms of being paid in ready money. This Bill, if passed, will have a most serious effect on all the solvent railway companies in the country. The Bill by the preamble no doubt points to the benefit of debenture-holders; but if passed it will do little good even to them, for it takes away from them the right, whatever it may be, that at present exists, of issuing execution for the principal and interest overdue, and instead of their having a valuable security it will be considerably deteriorated. It is said that the public will be benefited; but I venture to think that the public are never benefited by anything which is not an adherence to contract and to the rights acquired by the members of the public; and I cannot imagine how the public can be benefited if you materially alter the law of contracts. These are matters deserving of great consideration before we make further progress with the Bill. I have another objection against the Bill. This Bill appears to me to deal with nothing more than the merest fragment of one of the greatest and most important questions your Lordships can be called upon to consider. We have many millions invested in railway shares, and in debentures, and there is also a large floating unsecured railway debt. It is manifest to your Lordships from the progress of events that sooner or later—and I venture to think it cannot be done too soon—it will be necessary to consider not merely the interests of one particular class, but the whole subject. The legislation with regard to railways has gone on for some time upon the old and antiquated idea that a railway is a public highway; and that all you had to do was to set the highway
  116
  going and then everybody would be able to pass over it and the railway company would have nothing to do but to guard the highway. But this idea has vanished for some years, and we have now got the great carrying trade of the country monopolised by and centred in the railway companies. They have become in the progress of years great commercial undertakings, and we have to consider whether we are prepared to sanction the continuance of these great commercial undertakings on a footing different from all other commercial undertakings of the country. What would be said if it were proposed with regard to any other trading undertaking that it should be carried on with impunity against execution for debts? That would be impossible; and yet your Lordships cannot fail to observe that virtually this is the principle which is introduced into this Bill. I entreat your Lordships—I entreat the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill, whose great wisdom and experience on questions of this kind no one more readily recognises than myself, to pause in the progress of this measure until we have before us that which we are likely to have before long—namely, a comprehensive measure which can be considered with care and attention as a whole, and which I trust may, in its reception by the Legislature, have some beneficial effect in settling this large and most difficult question.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he felt he had a most difficult task to perform in answering the searching argument of the noble and learned Lord who was so experienced a pleader, and knew so well how to express what he felt in the most complete and comprehensive manner. But, in the first place, he submitted that the chief object of the Bill was to allow the more comprehensive measure to proceed unimpeded. At the present moment nothing would impede that legislation more than a seizure of the rolling stock of any important railway by any one creditor or body of creditors. It could not be said that solvent railways would be damaged by it, because almost all the solvent railway companies in the kingdom desired it to pass. Even the most important companies, who, as far as regards income and expenditure, were perfectly solvent, but who found great difficulty in raising money to meet debentures and other liabilities, which were on the point of falling in, looked with great apprehension to the consequences of the possible seizure of

  117
  their line or rolling stock. The answer to the many suppositious cases conceived by the noble and learned Lord was the same. The Bill was simply designed as a temporary measure to prevent an evil which was imminent as long as the whole class of railway evils remained without any effectual remedy. Nor could it be said that the security of the creditors would be depreciated by the passing of this Bill; it was important above all things that the earnings of a company should be protected, and that the ability of the company to make profit should be continued. Without the protection which the Bill proposed to afford, the whole security of creditors might be rendered worthless by the stoppage of a line. Take the means away and the whole became worthless. If an unpaid landowner seized the line, it ceased to work and nothing was earned; and although that individual landowner might get satisfaction none of his fellow creditors could hope to do so:—and, in the same manner, the money required for the interest of the debenture-holders, the payment of wages. He most decidedly differed from the noble public highways. He held that they were, and Parliament acted on that principle with regard to them, although, for the convenience of the public, they would be more beneficial to the public, by companies undertaking the working of them. It had been held that railways were granted for the public benefit, and that one class of creditors had not the power of stopping the line. Now, he thought that principle ought to be applied to every creditor as well as to one class; and Parliament, when it granted borrowing powers to railways, intended that the lenders should have the best remedy for the recovery of their money, though it might have turned out in regard to the working of the Acts that those remedies did not belong to them. He thought the principle of the decision recently given by the noble and learned Lord, that debenture-holders had not the remedy of seizing the rolling stock, ought to be applied to all other classes of creditors, because, whatever might be the strict construction of many Acts, there was no doubt Parliament had intended that debenture-holders should have the same rights as other creditors. Although on abstract grounds it might appear unfair that creditors should be deprived of their present remedy, the
  118
  proposal was a fair one as affecting the bulk of persons to whom railway companies were indebted, and the rejection of the measure would increase the depression which now prevailed, and would prevent companies from raising money on reasonable terms. He should, however, place himself in the hands of their Lordships, and if they desired that the Bill should be postponed or abandoned it would be useless for him to press it.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEthought the noble and learned Lord had conjured up a number of imaginary injuries which might befall creditors, but had not sufficiently considered the injury which a railway would sustain by the seizure of its rolling stock and the suspension of its traffic. The consequences to the entire body of creditors, whether shareholders, debenture-holders, or ordinary creditors, would be ruinous in the extreme. At the present moment there were so many railway companies under difficulties caused by the peculiar state of the law with regard to the different rights and claims of debenture-holders, that it was almost impossible for any railway, however solvent (except in the case of the very large railway companies which were paying good dividends), to renew their debentures. There were, in face, many large railways which could not and did not know how to get money for that purpose. The present condition of the whole of the railway companies arose from the state of the money-market; and the emergency was such that the only means of relief was in passing a measure similar to that then before their Lordships. The railways had got the monopoly of the traffic of the country, and the inconvenience and injury to the public from a stoppage of the traffic would be enormous. This was only a temporary measure to prevent such a disastrous state of things arising before Parliament could pass a comprehensive Bill to put matters on a more satisfactory footing. The comprehensive measure which had been spoken of was yet in nubibus, and if it should get into Parliament it was impossible to say whether it would pass. If, however, it did, the present Bill would present no hindrance to it, and indeed he believed it was calculated to facilitate its passage.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, there was no doubt some force in the objections to allowing the rolling stock of a railway to be taken in execution; but his noble and learned Friend had convinced him that, whatever course their Lordships might

  119
  take, it ought not to be such as would lead the public to believe that for any purpose whatever their Lordships' House would initiate that which was a positive injustice to present creditors. There were persons who no doubt had sold rolling stock to railway companies upon the faith that they would get paid in the ordinary way, and for Parliament to say that they should not be paid between this time and the 1st of August, might bring ruin and bankruptcy upon many. Whatever inconveniences might arise he hoped, for the honour of their Lordships' House, they would refuse to sanction a measure of so unjust a character.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he trusted the noble Lord would not proceed with the Bill, for it was doubtful whether it would obviate the inconveniences anticipated, and it might possibly act prejudicially both to solvent and to embarrassed companies. They might prevent by this Bill the seizure of rolling stock between this time and the 1st of August; but during that period debentures would require to be renewed; and it would be difficult to obtain an advance of money, even in the case of perfectly sound and solvent railway companies, when the nature of the security was in any possible doubt. If this Bill were passed, capitalists would naturally hesitate to advance money for the repayment of which the only practically available security had been placed in abeyance. If the whole law of debtor and creditor as regarded these large undertakings were placed in abeyance for some months, what security would capitalists have that it might not be altered again? The result, therefore, of the Bill would be to depreciate railway securities and to raise the rate of interest which lenders would require, and this might place in embarrassment many companies that were at present able to meet their obligations, by absorbing the margin which now existed between receipts and expenditure. Was the evil anticipated so great as to demand and justify so extreme a remedy and so doubtful a policy? He did not think the inconvenience to the public from the seizure of rolling stock could be so great as had been supposed, because the rolling stock was only available for use on railway lines, and adjoining lines having also rolling stock and the right to run over those lines would find it to be to their interest to prevent any stoppage of the traffic, when the traffic was worth carrying. There was hardly any case in
  120
  which adjoining railways had not a powerful interest in the traffic and interests of the principal lines, and which would not suffer proportionally by the seizure of the rolling stock and the stoppage of the traffic. Believing, then, that the Bill if passed would be a cause of great difficulty and embarrassment to solvent as well as insolvent companies, he urged upon the noble Lord seriously to consider the propriety of postponing the further progress of the Bill until the measure on the general subject before the other House of Parliament had come before their Lordships.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, after what had fallen from the noble Duke, and the general expression of opinion, he had no wish to press the Bill through Committee. He certainly, however, did not think that the measure was looked upon with an evil eye by railway companies generally. He should, therefore, assent to the withdrawal of the measure.
  EARL GREYthought that the noble Lord was perfectly right in withdrawing the Bill. He wished, however, to be in formed when it was likely the measure of the Government would be before their Lordships' House. Although he disapproved of the present temporary Bill, he nevertheless thought that the present state of the railway interests was such as to demand not only very grave but very prompt consideration. When they considered the many important questions to be disposed of by the other House of Parliament—considering that besides the financial business before them that House was also engaged in remodelling the Constitution—it appeared to him that there was very little hope of the general measure on this subject being speedily submitted to their Lordships. It was, he thought, to be regretted that that measure had not been initiated in their Lordships' House, when they would have had the valuable assistance of many noble and learned Lords who were thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and were great authorities upon it.
  Then the said Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  INCREASE OF EPISCOPATE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Successors to erect Three additional Sees in England, and for providing Assistance to Bishops disabled by Age or other Infirmity—Was presented by The Lord LYTTELTON; read 1a. (No. 51.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.