Lords Sitting of 3 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision * (176); Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* (177).
Second Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (157); Electric Lighting

1447
Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (151) Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (152); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (158); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (161); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) * (162); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11) * (163); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Petroleum * (154).
Report—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.)* (153); Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) 4 (144).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (149); Companies (Colonial Registers)* (150), and passed.

PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked whether it was really the intention of the Government to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill on Monday, as it had not yet been circulated or even printed?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): It was arranged yesterday, after full consultation with the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), that the second reading should be taken on Monday.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I do not think it was then contemplated that the Bill would not be in the hands of your Lordships by that time.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): It will be circulated to-morrow morning.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Monday was fixed last night, it is true; but it is also perfectly true that the Bill has not yet been circulated.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSThe Bill stands eighth on the Paper for that day.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): That can be arranged. If the noble Marquess thinks Monday an inconvenient day we can have a later one. My only difficulty is about giving Notice of the change.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt this discussion will serve as a Notice to the Peers.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Very well. Then we will fix the second reading for Tuesday.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 157.)
  (The Lord Thurlow.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 2nd day of March last That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Earl of Redesdale.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he thought that a measure of such importance would have been introduced by Her Majesty's Government with some statement. The House would understand that in making his present remarks he was actuated by no motives of preference or dislike for any particular Company, or for the Bills in general; but simply by considerations of public interest. This Bill was one of 11 which were on the Paper for second reading. One alone contained 500 pages of closely printed matter, and was full of abstruse technical details. Nine of those Bills were what was called unopposed—that was, had been examined by the Board of Trade, and Provisional Orders granted; but these were really in the same position as any other Public Bill, and their provisions required examination on public grounds. A year ago there was a great mania for electric lighting. By the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 the Board of Trade had power to grant a Provisional Order to any Company applying for one, and that Order had to be confirmed by Parliament. There were a large number of applications made under the Act; the Report presented to the House on the subject showed that 106 applications were received on and before the 21st of November, 23 by Local Authorities, 83 by Companies, 97 of them relating to England and Wales, 8 to Scotland, and 1 to the town of Belfast in Ireland; while 35 were in respect of London and the suburbs. The Bills dealt with districts. It was in evidence before the Electric Lighting Committee of last year that it would cost £100,000 to light a square mile in one of the districts. Few districts were less than a square mile, and the first matter of public importance was the question whether the

  1449
  plan of dealing with localities by districts should not be abandoned. The way in which the districts were parcelled out was such that the Companies could not efficiently light them. Under one class of these Provisional Orders any district might be divided into two Schedules, A and B; and while the Order enjoined the laying down of mains in the principal streets in Schedule A, Schedule B, and the minor streets in Schedule A, need not necessarily receive any benefit whatever for the whole period of 21 years. Every one of those Bills would create a monopoly for 21 years. At any rate, for two years they need do nothing, and then they might take time to consider when they should begin their works, and so forth. Considering the great difficulty there would be in ousting a Company which had obtained a footing of that kind, he thought it not too much to say that the Bill would confer a monopoly. Then, as to the expense for performing the works, the estimate for them ought to be set down in the Bill, and there ought to be evidence of the Company's being able to carry out the work. He would give one instance of a Company applying for powers under these Bills. Last year it paid £230,000 for patents, which had since become useless, and the Company had thereby become very much crippled. That Company was applying for powers to light no loss than 25 districts in the City of London; and, taking each district as a square mile, the Company would be committed to an expenditure of £2,500,000, and had only paid £50 for the concession. What guarantee was there that this Company could bear such an expenditure as that? The fact was, no doubt, that having obtained these powers, they would sell them piecemeal to other parties, and would probably make a profit. That seemed to him to be laughing at Parliament and perfectly absurd. It was a serious question whether Parliament should allow this to be clone. If the concessions were not sold, the Company might fall to the ground, though the public might want electric lights. Another point was that most of these Bills contained the same Orders which had been drawn up by the Board of Trade. These Orders should, it seemed to him, be embodied in one Act similar to the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, and applied to all future Bills.
  1450
  Then there should be clauses as to the price to be charged. He found that that varied almost with each Bill. It varied per unit. A unit represented in lighting power about 100 feet of gas, and the price per unit in these Bills amounted to 7d., 8d., and 9d. That meant that while on the average 3s. 2d. was paid for 1,000 feet of gas, 5s. 10 d., 6s. 8d., and 7s. 6d. was to be paid for the same amount of lighting power by electricity. That was a matter which ought to be closely investigated. He hoped he had said enough to induce their Lordships to agree with him that the Bills should, at any rate for the present, be postponed. These unopposed Bills ought to be referred to the same Select Committee as dealt with the opposed Bills. There were only nine Bills before their Lordships, because Nos. 8 and 9 had been strongly opposed in the other House, and only came to their Lordships last night within five minutes after they had left the other House. Those opposed Bills did not in any way differ from the unopposed, except that it appeared that the work could be done a little cheaper. He would, therefore, suggest that the second reading of the unopposed Bills be postponed for the present.
  LORD TRURLOWsaid, he was not in the least surprised that the noble Lord had called attention to these important Bills; and he assured him that there was no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to allow thorn to be read a second time without a public explanation as to their nature. Their Lordships were aware not only of the very great interest the noble Lord took in the discussions on this subject, but also of his great knowledge of the details of it. Therefore, he, for one, felt that his opinion on a practical matter of this kind was entitled to a considerable amount of respect. At the same time, he hoped to show their Lordships that the question raised by the noble Lord had not escaped the attention of the Board of Trade, or of the carefully-composed Committees to which the Bills had been referred in the other House. He should first explain the position in which these Bills stood in their Lordships' House. Their Lordships were aware that these Bills had been presented in pursuance of the Act of last year, which was brought in by the President of the Board of Trade, and under which Provisional Orders

  1451
  were to be granted from time to time as applications for the purpose were made by public bodies, municipal or otherwise. At the same time, the Board of Trade issued a Code of Rules, which they had compiled with great care, stating the conditions under which Provisional Orders would be granted. They laid down three very important points. In the first place, the undertakers were to light some portion of the district allotted to them within a certain time, and subject to certain conditions. In the second place, a certain amount of capital must be raised. The noble Lord had questioned the ability of the Companies to comply with that condition; but he could assure the noble Lord that the Board of Trade had made minute inquiries into their financial condition. He thought a compliance with that second Rule would afford a sufficient guarantee. He would also point out that when once the Companies had obtained contracts, there would be no difficulty in their raising capital. The third point, upon which the Board of Trade placed the very highest importance, was that of monopoly. It was one of the very great advantages of the electric lighting system that it would, to a great extent, no doubt, break down the existing monopolies of the Gas Companies. So strong a feeling did the President of the Board of Trade and all the officers of that Department entertain against granting a new and powerful monopoly, that the Board of Trade went on to say that in the case of Companies no monopoly was, under the Act, granted, or intended to be granted, to them; and that should the Electric Lighting Companies to whom Provisional Orders should be granted neglect their duties in their district, or charge exorbitant prices, there was nothing to prevent the granting of another Provisional Order to a competing Body in that district. The Board of Trade wished it to be distinctly understood what the conditions were upon which Provisional Orders would be granted, and they would take care that no future claim to a monopoly should be made by any Company. The noble Lord had referred to certain questions of technical detail, with which, however, he would not now trouble their Lordships at length. The first point was as to the particular system of lighting to be adopted. There were, as their Lordships were aware,
  1452
  two principal systems—the circuit and the series systems. The Companies had power to conduct their lighting either on the one system or on the other. Then there was the question of the measurement of the supply, or the meter as it was called. That question was not yet quite settled. Then, with regard to the prices, these Bills comprised different rates. In one Bill, £3 10 s. was charged for 100 units, and in another, £3 15 s.; then 7d. for every unit beyond was charged in one Bill, and 9d. in another. There was nothing exceptional in this, for the price of gas varied in different localities. Moreover, the mode of lighting, and the lamps used, differed in different localities. The noble Viscount objected to the division of towns into districts for purposes of electric lighting. But if a town were lighted by one Company, a much more powerful monopoly would be created than if the town were divided into districts. His noble Friend also said that he would like to see all these Electric Lighting Bills embodied in one General Act. That, however, would be impossible, because these Bills were very numerous, and the conditions varied in each case. Numerous as they were, they were only the forerunners of a still larger number that would be introduced next Session. He trusted that their Lordships would not adopt the course recommended by his noble Friend, more especially as it would be unusual, and contrary to practice, to refer unopposed Bills to a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he felt for the unfortunate people of London, who had been cut out into squares for the Electric Lighting Companies. He thought some opportunity should be given of hearing whether or not the people could get the work done better than by these Companies. The Bill of last year was passed on the 18th of August; and schemes had to be presented to the Board of Trade before the 18th of September, or within one month, the result of that arrangement being that only those Companies which were standing ready to jump, as it were, were enabled to put in their claim. All real competition, therefore, had been practically excluded; and that was a very serious reason for allowing these Bills to be examined before a Committee, and giving a locus standi, not only to the

  1453
  Companies who might have put in a rival claim, but also to the inhabitants who were so much interested in this work being done cheaply. He had no desire to discourage the adoption of electric lighting; on the contrary, he had a great belief in the future of electric lighting; but he did not think that it would have a fair chance under the present arrangement. The Bill before them contained some remarkable provisions. A part of the town was assigned to a particular Company and was divided into two blocks. The Company wore told—"You must light Block A at once; but you may put off lighting Block B until a more convenient time," and no other Company was allowed to light it. The inhabitants of Block B would thus have to wait in order that the dividends of the Company lighting Block A might have time to rise. It was impossible to pass a Bill with such a provision as that in it without feeling a certain sympathy with the inhabitants of Block B. Everything south of Piccadilly was in Block A, which was very comfortable to them; but everything north of Piccadilly was in Block B, and everyone who inhabited Savile Row, Regent Street, Oxford Street, and thereabouts, would be compelled to go without electric lighting in order that something might be kept for the Company to extend into it in case their speculation should turn out to be a success. He thought that the inhabitants of these unfortunate districts were being handed over to a monopoly which had been very carelessly admitted, and the effect of which would be that electric lighting would be adopted at a much more distant period than it might otherwise have been. It should also be borne in mind that the greater the distance of the streets illuminated by electricity from the place of supply the greater the expense. The obvious policy, therefore, was to make districts as small as possible, and to encourage Companies to supply small areas.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it had not been possible for their Lordships to examine carefully the provisions of the Bill, which he looked upon with the greatest possible distrust. They had been told that nothing in the nature of a monopoly was created by this Bill and the others on the Paper. It that were so, why had certain districts been assigned to particular Companies?
  1454
  What guarantee had they that the concession which had been granted would not hereafter be sold? His noble Freind (Lord Thurlow) had given as a reason for the difference in price that gas was provided at different prices in different parts of the Metropolis. He thought that the mere mention of gas or water ought to be sufficient to put their Lordships on their guard. Why should the price of gas vary as it did, and why should electric light be charged for at different rates in different parts of the town? He held that it would be rash to pass this and the following Bills without further inquiry.
  VISCOUNT BURYexplained that he wished to have the unopposed Bills referred to the same Committee which was to consider the two opposed measures. If his wish wore acceded to, he should not oppose the second reading of the present Bill.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he doubted whether much good would result from referring these Bills to a Select Committee at so late a period of the Session. Though he thought it his duty to move that the Standing Order be suspended, he did not see how this mass of Bills could be properly dealt with. He did not like to undertake to advise their Lordships, as he did not profess to understand the subject of electric lighting.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that, like his noble Friend, he did not like to address their Lordships on a matter he did not understand; but there were one or two points which he thought worthy of their Lordships' consideration. In the first place, there were opponents of these Bills in the House of Commons, and those opponents had disappeared; and, in the second place, there was great competition—almost too great—in the number of Companies. With respect to the principle, it was a principle applicable to the Bill of last year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as No. 1 Provisional Order Bill was opposed, it should be read a second time, and then referred to a Committee. The other Bills were not opposed.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 151.)
  (The Lord Thurlow.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 2nd day of March last 'That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he begged to move that the Bill be referred to the same Committee as that to which No. 1 Bill was referred, in order to enable Petitioners to be heard.
  "That the Bill be referred to the same Select Committee as the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill, with leave to all petitioners to be heard." — (The Viscount Bury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that last year a most elaborate Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of enabling the Board of Trade to deal with those Bills. He was perfectly aware that it was within the competence of that House, and of the other House of Parliament, when a Provisional Order was made by the Board of Trade, to oppose it; but it was most unusual to do so when a Bill was not opposed. If they were to go back upon the General Act that had been passed, and not respect the Provisional Orders which had been made under it when they came from the Board of Trade, the whole system would break down.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the object was not to reject the Bill, but to allow it to be inquired into.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is the same thing in this case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if inquiry was the same thing as rejection it spoke very little in favour of the Bill. When the noble Earl said that the Bill was not opposed, the fact was that the Bill could not be opposed by the people most interested—the inhabitants of the districts affected. It was for the purpose of preventing the
  1456
  great blunder with respect to the Water Companies being repeated that the House was urged to accept the proposal of his noble Friend.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Motion of the noble Viscount would, if adopted, go far to change the whole of the Rules as to locus standi.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it had been done in the other House.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he had borne the amplest testimony to the great energy the Board of Trade had exhibited in arranging all the electric details, which were as perfect as they could be at present, though they might be still more improved in the course of time. He, however, made his Motion on public grounds, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the distribution of the districts was a proper one or not. At the present moment, the division into two districts left three-fourths of the whole district at the mercy of the persons to whom the Provisional Orders load been granted. What he wanted was that the Committee should see whether it was not possible to re-arrange the districts by streets.
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked who were the parties to appear before the Committees? No one in the districts would have a locus standi; and the inquiry which his noble Friend asked for could not be conducted unless they were to change the Standing Orders of the House by which Private Business was carried on out of favour to a particular class of the community.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he had urged that every Petitioner should be heard.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the material point, in his opinion, was the question of price. Different prices were to be charged. If one of these Bills was to be referred to a Committee, he could not see why they should not all be treated alike.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that it was of great importance that time should be allowed to those interested in the question to come before the House.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he apprehended that the Motion of his noble Friend amounted to this—that it should be an Instruction to the Committee that the different parties interested should be heard.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 25: Majority 5.

  CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Forbes, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Gerard, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) [Teller.]

  Ventry, L.

  Watson, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Crofton, L.

  Ellenborough, L. [Teller.]

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Derby, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Granville, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Morley, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he rose to ask what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to the proposed New Suez Canal, and to move for Papers. Since the Agreement which load been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the Suez Canal, had been withdrawn, there remained the question as to the course which, under existing circumstances, would be adopted in view of the interests of this country; and, so far as he had been able to follow the Papers which had been laid before Parliament, he did not see that they were in possession of what the Government now proposed to do. It was evident that the question was attended with many difficulties.
    1458
    Legal opinions of weight had been expressed entirely in opposite directions; there had been hasty action on both sides, as well as hasty statements; and it was much to be regretted that Parliament was not consulted, and the feeling of the country ascertained, before coming to any conclusion upon a question so materially affecting great commercial interests. He did not, however, wish to dwell now upon what was past; but he did think that, as the Session was drawing to a close, Parliament and the country ought to know what the Government, under certain circumstances, proposed to do. He was not one of those who believed that the interests of this country had been very materially injured by the Agreement that had been made and broken off. The case, it was true, load become a complicated one; but, when considered on its real merits, it was not so much so, perhaps, as it had been sometimes represented. The Suez Canal Company, if he rightly understood, did not claim the exclusive right of a waterway between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; all that they claimed under the Concession was the exclusive power — pouvoir exclusif—to make a communication through the Isthmus of Suez to the East of the Damietta branch of the Nile. He did not wish to enter upon the legal points which had been raised, neither did he suppose for a moment that the Legal Advisers of the Crown claimed infallibility; but he could not see, even granting that the Legal Advisers of the Crown were right in their opinion, that the interests of this country were materially jeopardized; for what was the actual position of the Suez Canal Company? They were very much like any other Company. It was true the original chief promoters of it were Frenchmen; and the mercantile world were greatly indebted to the distinguished person, M. de Lesseps, by whose energy, ability, and perseverance this great work was accomplished. But this did not make it a French Company exclusively. The Canal was not a French Canal; it was an Egyptian one, which at the end of 99 years, the period of the Concession, would revert to the Egyptian Government unless the Concession was renewed. The President was not of necessity a Frenchman. M. de Lesseps was appointed originally Director or

    1459
    President for 10 years, and the power of nomination was vested in the Egyptian Government, the selection being made, as far as possible, from among the principal shareholders. That being so, it was evident that at any time the Egyptian Government might, if it were so disposed, nominate a Director or President of any nationality, and the majority of shareholders might also be of any nationality. There was, consequently, nothing to prevent the mercantile interests of this country being represented to any extent on the Board of Directors. He could not, therefore, see in what way this or any other country was likely to be much injured under the original Concession granted by the Viceroy Said Pasha in 1854, or under the Convention of the Khedive, Ismail Pasha, in 1866. But as they were informed in the Papers before the House that another Canal was likely to be commenced very shortly, he thought their Lordships and the country ought to be made aware, before the close of the Session, what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to it. M. de Lesseps, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, dated July 20, 1883, referring to the Agreement which had now, it appeared, been cancelled, said—
    "I formally declare that if our Agreement should be suspended or even cancelled, the excavation of a second Maritime Canal will be immediately carried out, and all the reductions of tolls provided for in that Agreement will take effect."
    Were they, then, to understand from this that the Government would secure for this country, as far as possible, all the advantages, whether of tolls and dues or otherwise, which were provided for under the late Agreement, or were other negotiations being carried on? He wished to put this to Her Majesty's Government. He had one word to add with reference to Papers and Correspondence on this subject. He regretted that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had not thought it well to lay further Papers on the Table of the House. There was one very noticeable omission. So far as he had been able to follow the Papers which had been issued, there was a total absence of all Papers or Correspondence with, or relating to, the Government of the Porte and the Egyptian Government. It was very remarkable, as regarded the Ottoman Government, inasmuch as the ratification of the Sultan as
    1460
    Sovereign of Egypt was required before any concession could take effect. If such Correspondence existed, he would ask the noble Earl whether it could be laid upon the Table of the House, as well as any which had reference to the Egyptian Government? He might add that in the Correspondence and Papers presented to Parliament there were none which gave the views of other Powers who must be interested in this question.
    Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty for Papers respecting the proposed new Suez Canal."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am really surprised at the Question of the noble Earl. Using the phrase of the late Prime Minister, I may say that a good many things have happened since Notice of this Question was first put upon the Minutes of this House. There I have been important statements in both Houses of Parliament, and the original scheme has been abandoned. In the other House a Vote of Censure has been recently dealt with; and, with respect to Papers, they have been presented to Parliament up to the latest date to which they extend.
    EARL DE LA WARRsaid, the noble Earl had not answered his Question relating to the intentions of the Government.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I have no further statement to make in addition to the statement made in both Houses of Parliament the other day.
    On Question? Resolved in the negative.

    PETROLEUM BILL.—(No. 154.)
    (The Earl Granville.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    EARL GRANVILLE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the original Act of 1862 had been repealed by another in the year 1871, which was the main Act affecting petroleum dealers. This Act had been supplemented by one passed in 1879, and another in 1881, which related to wharfing petroleum. Recently a great many representations had been made by local authorities that a change in the law was absolutely necessary; and he might state that persons engaged in the trade had admitted the necessity of fur-

    1461
    ther legislation. In consequence of these representations the present Bill was introduced. It dealt with mineral oil in general, and not merely with low test oil. The existing system of licensing by local authorities would be abolished, and uniform rules laid down respecting the trade; and thus the injustice of different dealers being subjected to rules differing with the locality would be avoided. The noble Marquess had presented a Petition against the Bill, and he was sensible of the importance of the matters referred to in that Petition. Complaint was also made of the late period of the Session when the Bill was introduced; but this was always likely to happen when legislation for the security of the public against dangers was required by the Home Department. Since the Bill was read a first time he had received representations from the Greenwich Local Authorities, showing the extreme danger of allowing 800,000 gallons of petroleum to be warehoused in one place and near to jute stores; therefore, this was a matter in which the public safety was deeply involved. He was glad to say that they could refer the Bill to a Select Committee, notwithstanding the lateness of the Session, as four noble Lords had consented to serve, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had consented to preside as Chairman; and, consequently, there would be every opportunity given for considering the details of the Bill, which was, undoubtedly, one relating to the public danger.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl Granville.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he considered that the course proposed by the noble Earl was a fair one. It was a good Committee, and there would be a competent Chairman. The subject was one of great importance. The local authorities complained of the danger arising from the storage of these articles; and there would be, without doubt, great responsibility if the Bill were put off for another year. Some of the provisions of the Bill were peculiar, and would require great consideration, particularly those which required that all kinds of mineral oils should be kept in registered places, and that they should be kept in such a manner that they could not escape into other protected
    1462
    places. Now, though there were dangers arising from the sale of petroleum, yet it was a very useful thing—it was an absolute necessity of life; and, perhaps, no discovery in modern times had added so much comfort to the poorest classes of the community. He, therefore, held that that House ought to be very careful in introducing legislation, however much called for in the public safety, which should place any practical bar to the use of this necessary of life by a large portion of the population.
    Motion agreed to; Bill road 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee: The Committee to be named on Monday next.

    CHILDREN'S DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES ACT, 1879 — JUVENILE ACROBATS.— OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the operation of the Act of 1879, intituled "The Children's Dangerous Performances Act." He did not intend to discuss the principle of the Act, as that had already been affirmed, but merely to refer to details connected with the matter. In 1879 a Bill was passed by the Government which provided that no person should cause a child under the ago of 14 to go through any performance whereby, in the opinion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, life or limb should be endangered. These provisions had been altogether ignored. He believed that at this time the evil prevailed to a greater extent than it ever did before. Within the last two or three weeks he had received communications from persons who were deeply concerned about the continuance of horrible and disgusting exhibitions; and although the Session was drawing to a close, he thought it would be desirable to bring the subject under the notice of the Government, in order that they might consider whether next Session something could not be done in the way of amending the law so as to give the much-needed protection to young children, and save the country from exhibitions so disgusting to every sense of humanity. He would first direct their Lordships' attention to a letter in The Times of Thursday from a clergyman who had been present at a one of these exhibitions, animated by a desire to

    1463
    learn what was the true nature of the amusements that were so attractive to certain classes of the people. In his letter he described the feat which was designated that of "the human serpent;" and he said—
    "This human serpent' is a little girl, and she is made to throw her head backwards and to bend her spine so that her head not only touches the ground, but is bent completely under her, so that her face looks out from between her legs. In this painful position she is compelled to remain and to perform tricks until the blood rushes into her face and she is obliged to unbend, upon doing which she pants fearfully."
    A few weeks ago he received a letter from a man who had been for more than 20 years connected with an association of gymnasts, acrobats, circus riders, and the like; and this correspondent said—
    "Of these wretched children the number is legion. They are taken at a very tender age—the earlier the better—under the guise of apprentices, and the masters claim control over them until 21 years of age. Now, my experience teaches me that before reaching that age 18 out of 20 who escape fatal accidents are obliged to wear pads or bandages, the result of broken limbs or sprains through falls; and I can assert that all and every accident that occurs is carefully hushed up and kept from the knowledge of the public, if possible."
    All this was confirmed by the testimony of an acrobat who came to see him and give an account of his early life. He was 25 years of age, and could walk about, but was wholly incapable of muscular labour, and ever in danger of falling down. He described the torture undergone in training, especially for that which was called the "back-slide trick," in which the body was turned into a hoop, the head meeting the heels. His first informant further said—
    "If your Lordship had seen and knew, as I have seen and know during an experience of 20 years, the floggings and cruelties practised in the so-called tuition of those little ones, and the hardships they have to endure, I am sure your Lordship would not lose an instant in trying to stop those cruelties at once and for ever."
    He might go on to much greater length; but surely here was enough to stir anyone to exertion on behalf of those miserable victims. The law in America, and he believed in certain parts of the Continent, was stringent and well observed. No boy or girl in America was allowed to appear in public as gymnast or acrobat before attaining the age of 16 years, and then only on the production of a certificate in proof of age. He might be
    1464
    asked—"What is your remedy for such a state of things?" There was, he thought, some legislative remedy; but the Session was too far advanced for any hope of the kind. The placing under apprenticeship for such services should be absolutely forbidden. Children were sold by their parents, or possibly surrendered by the workhouses. The age before which they might be exhibited should be raised to 17, for the cost of maintaining them to that age would eat up all the profits, and so put a stop to the system altogether. The Act was defective in providing that no performance should be permitted whereby "the life or limb of any child shall be endangered." The performance itself might not be dangerous, but the training for such performance was cruel and dangerous in the extreme; yet by the terms of the Act it was not prohibited. The school board authorities might be instructed to exercise more vigilance, and see that these children were sent to school. School and acrobat training could never go on together. The magistrates and the police, too, in the case of such exhibitions taking place within their respective jurisdictions, might be instructed to demand an inspection of the certificates of the ages of these children, and be empowered, if not satisfied, to prohibit the exhibition altogether. But laws, though good and necessary, might be ineffective unless backed by public opinion. So long as the public would countenance such things, and pay for seeing them, so long these horrible practices would continue. It was a disgrace to the age in which we lived, and it was in the hope of making an appeal to the community in general that they should express their disgust and horror of such amusements as these that he had ventured to bring this sad subject under the consideration of their Lordships.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not take exception to anything that had fallen from the noble Earl. He might say on behalf of the Government, and on his own behalf, most sincerely, that the noble Earl was always listened to on such subjects with the greatest attention. He felt confident that the appeal of the noble Earl to the public would not be without its effect. But, however much the Government might sympathize with the noble Earl in his reprobation of these atrocities, and in

    1465
    his desire to put a stop to them, it was, as the noble Earl himself had said, too late to think of legislation this Session. The Act of 1870 had, no doubt, prevented some dangerous public exhibitions; but it did nothing to check a great deal of cruelty to children when they were being trained to acrobatic performances. That Act only passed with considerable modifications; and he believed, even in the form in which it was first introduced, it would not have met the cases his noble Friend had brought to the notice of the House. The noble Earl had shown in his speech what might be done without any further legislation, and he hoped sincerely that his words would not be lost upon the school boards of the country. Undoubtedly, it was impossible that school board education and acrobatic training could go together; and if the school beards were thoroughly active and efficient, acrobatic training must collapse. On behalf of the Government, he could only say that the matter, having been brought to their notice, should be most carefully considered.
    LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that, with regard to the charge of apprenticing children from the workhouses, he would cause inquiries to be made as to whether Boards of Guardians had apprenticed children to acrobats.
    THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the Act of 1879 authorized the magistrates to prevent performances that wore dangerous to life or limb; but if a magistrate went to witness an acrobatic performance be would probably not see any danger in it, on account of the proficiency acquired by the performer. The real danger lay in the training, which was not public, and which the magistrates could not stop.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
    (NO. 176.) A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary: And

    STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL [H.L.] (NO. 177.)
    A Bill for promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing various enactments relating to civil procedure or matters connected therewith, and for amending in some respects the law relating to civil procedure:
    Were presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read la.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.