Lords Sitting of 15 August 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment * (233); Public Works Loans *(234); Women's Suffrage (No. 2) * (236).
Second Reading — Bill withdrawn — Boiler Registry and Inspection (229).
Committee — Report — Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (226); Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2) (230).
Third Reading—Truck (232); Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) (223), and passed.

BOILER REGISTRY AND INSPECTION BILL.—(No. 229.)
(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
BOILER REGISTRY AND INSPECTION BILL.—(No. 229.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not propose to proceed further with the measure this year, his sole object at present being to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill, in order that its provisions might, during the Recess, have the advantage of being before the public and be subjected to the searching criticism which he hoped it would receive. The Government might thus, perhaps, get the means of ascertaining what was the general feeling on the subject, and how far they could deal with this matter at all. If the Bill were now read a second time he hoped next Session to move for the appointment of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House in order that the subject might be thoroughly examined. It would, perhaps, be convenient if he were to mention how the law stood at present with regard to this matter. Something like 20 years ago attention was drawn to this matter. In 1870 a Select Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed which went very carefully into the matter and reported in 1871. They expressed a doubt whether compulsory inspection was then advisable, and held that the steam-user was responsible for the efficiency of the boiler. In 1882 an Act was passed by which it became the duty of the Board of Trade to appoint

  451
  competent engineers to investigate all cases of boiler explosion, whether attended by loss of life or not. It was only, therefore, in the last five years that the Board of Trade had had officially submitted to them the task of inquiring into those explosions. The Reports of the Inspectors had been laid before both Houses of Parliament. His attention had been called to the subject especially by the Report of the Assistant Secretary under the Act, who had pointed out that the term "accident" as applied to many steam boiler explosions was a misnomer, and the only thing accidental about them was that the boilers had remained so long without exploding. Although he did not say that foreign countries should necessarily form a rule for ourselves, at the same time foreign countries for the most part insisted upon the inspection of boilers. What were the principal causes of the evils of which he had been speaking? They were, first of all, weak or defective designs in the first instance; secondly, bad condition, owing to deterioration; thirdly, want of proper inspection; fourthly, want of proper fittings; and, fifthly, undue working pressure. Another cause which could only partially be dealt with was ignorance or neglect on the part of the attendant. Since the time of the Report to which he had referred there had been a very great and remarkable increase in the use of steam by small owners. Steam was used in farms, as assistance to many minor manufactures, such as in carpenters' shops. Boilers, in fact, were used for purposes far in excess of those for which they had been used 20 years before. They were placed in closely crowded streets, with only a thin board in many instances between them and the crowd. There was a still growing increase caused by the use of dynamos for producing electric light; and engines were placed for different purposes in all sorts of positions, upon the tops of high scaffolds, &c, and they were often used by persons who were but little conversant with the dangers to be apprehended. With regard to what was the system in foreign countries—in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland—boilers were subjected to periodical inspection. In Austria, France, and Germany the inspection was made partly by Government officials, and partly by the officials
  452
  of private associations; while in Denmark and Holland it was made by Government officials. In Italy only railway boilers—with which this measure did not propose to deal—were inspected. There was also an official inspection of boilers in many of the Colonies. In New Zealand there was a Government inspection; and in several of the States of the United States there was an inspection conducted by the Governments of the separate States. He mentioned this in order to show that it was a fallacy to suppose that the State inspection of boilers acted as a check upon trade. In this country there was a system of inspection by companies or private associations, some of them formed for the purpose of inspection only, some combining inspection and insurance. It was therefore impossible to ascertain with anything approaching to accuracy the number of boilers there were in this country. The number was estimated at from 115,000 up to 140,000, or even 150,000, and as far as he could ascertain about 70,000, or perhaps 50 per cent, were under inspection already. The Bill which he now submitted to their Lordships did not seek to provide for Government inspection, but to endeavour to make use of and to extend the benefits of the existing inspection associations. It was proposed that certain rules should be laid down by a central authority under which the inspections were to be conducted. It was not, however, possible wholly to rely upon the natural interest of the owner to insure. He (Lord Stanley of Preston) had placed himself in communication with most of those interested in the matter. The Mechanical Engineers' Institute of Civil Engineers, the Boiler Makers, Boiler Users, and the Boiler Inspecting Societies, and he was bound to recognize the very cordial help and assistance which he had received on all hands; the result was, he felt able to propose that the Board of Trade, acting as the central authority, should be assisted by a committee of experts gathered from all these different interests upon whose advice the Board of Trade should endeavour to act in framing its rules. Practically speaking, there was no such thing as accidents; and he was persuaded that the present lamentable loss of life from boiler explosions arose mainly from causes which could be foreseen, and, in

  453
  almost every case, prevented; and the object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to remove those causes. It was said that accidents could not be entirely prevented, no matter what precautions were taken. This was, no doubt, true; but, nevertheless, every attempt ought to be made to lessen accidents by requiring that employers should take every reasonable means of carrying on their business safely. In addition to evils which he had enumerated there was neglect on the part of those who tended boilers, and in certain cases the present Bill proposed to make that neglect criminal. It required that employers should take reasonable means for carrying on their business safely, gave increased protection to the owner, increased safety to the workmen, and an increased measure of security to the general public, who sometimes suffered from these boiler explosions. Though introduced by him as a Member of the Government, his Colleagues were not answerable for its details, nor even for all its principles. He had, however, closely inquired into this subject, and was firmly persuaded that a strong case for interference had been made out, and he hoped that their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading with a view to its being proceeded with next Session. The 2nd clause of the Bill provided that all boilers should be registered—new boilers when they were made, and every boiler now in use within three months after the passing of the Act. The necessity for registration arose from the fact that in almost all these explosions it was impossible to trace the age or previous history of the boiler. In many cases it appeared that the boiler had been bought second-hand, its age being unknown either to the seller or buyer, and the difficulty of establishing the responsibility of the employer was in consequence greatly increased. Clause 5 attempted to fix a little more closely than at present the responsibility in case of an explosion by providing that the owner might by an instrument in writing nominate some competent person to superintend, and who would be responsible for, the working of the boiler. Clause 6 provided that a boiler should not be used unless certificated. The 7th clause dealt with the constitution of the Committee which was to assist the Board of Trade in framing rules, and upon
  454
  whose advice the Board of Trade would act. Such Committee would be composed of one representative of Lloyd's, two from the Institution of Civil Engineers, two from the Mechanical Engineers, three gentlemen representing the Improved Boilers Company, three representing the Boiler Makers Society and other persons in the boiler trade, and four representing the general users of steam boilers. There were no means of forming a constituency to elect these gentlemen, and they would be selected from the names submitted to the Board of Trade. Clause 8 provided for surveys by surveyors acting on behalf of any society, company, or body whose rules were approved of by the Board of Trade, assisted by the committee of experts. Clause 11 made it a misdemeanour on the part of any surveyor to receive any fee or remuneration other than that sanctioned by the rules of the body appointing him, also for making any false declaration, and by Clause 12 any person who knowingly made, or caused to be made, any false statement or concealed any necessary information, or who forged or fraudulently gave a certificate, would be penally dealt with. Clause 14 imposed a penalty on the use of undue pressure on boilers. The certificate would contain the pressure to be used, and it was deemed necessary to deal with the common practice of working boilers far beyond the pressure they were designed to bear. By the 24th clause, the Bill was to apply—with certain exceptions—to every boiler in the United Kingdom, on land or afloat, within the territorial waters, the latter provision being necessary to take in steam launches and tugs, which did not come under marine inspection. Ships were exempted which were already classed at Lloyd's, and boilers used by Railway Companies were also exempted. There was practically no case against the Railway Companies, whose system of inspection was thorough, scientific, and complete. Neither did the Bill deal with domestic boilers. He had now laid before their Lordships the principal provisions of the Bill. He asked not that it should be passed into law this Session, but only that it should receive a very searching investigation at the hands of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. We had a great and, he believed, a growing evil to con-

  455
  tend with. He earnestly hoped that while acting by all right and legitimate means and without any inquisitorial investigations or anything which was in any degree in restriction of trade, their Lordships would, nevertheless, so far assert the principles he had endeavoured to propound as to give this Bill pro formâ a second reading. As he had said, he did not propose to proceed with it further this year, but he hoped what he had said would show their Lordships what a great evil existed and what dangers could be avoided. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there were one or two points on which he thought his noble Friend had failed to give information. He did not dispute that it was the duty of the State to interfere when such interference was beneficial for the saving of life and limb. The question was whether legislation in this direction had always been successful. His noble Friend had told them that there were 150,000 boilers of all kinds in the United Kingdom. Did he include in that number all farm engines? Did he include kitchen boilers?
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON: No.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But accidents occurred through kitchen boilers as well as other boilers. He wanted to know why, if the principle of the Bill were sound, it should not be extended to kitchen boilers? Then his noble Friend had not stated the number of deaths occasioned by the bursting of boilers that had induced the Government to bring in this Bill. His noble Friend told them that already we had in this country, by voluntary inspection, something like 70,000 boilers inspected out of the 150,000. His noble Friend likewise mentioned that State inspection, existed in other countries. He should have been glad if his noble Friend had shown the relative number of accidents in those countries as compared with this country. These were valuable data which they ought to have. He should also like to know how many inspectors would be appointed under this Bill, what would be the cost of inspection, and who would bear the cost? Would it come out of the
  456
  local rates or out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the pockets of the persons who owned the boilers? This was a Bill to enable the State to step in and do what individuals had hitherto done for themselves.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that as the noble Lord had not troubled the House with the statistics of the disasters which had happened, and as he was not going further with the Bill, he did not understand that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would be affirming its principle in any way. Their Lordships were in total ignorance of the extent of the mischief intended to be removed; he, however, confessed he had a perfect horror of inspectors, who would have their own particular views up to which boiler makers would be acting, instead of, as at present, looking only to the improvement of boilers. In the circumstances he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, the number of cases which the Board of Trade had to deal with by Statute did not include collieries and mines, but he should hereafter propose that these be included. Apart from them there were 223 cases in five years, and 150 lives lost, or a yearly average of 44 cases and 30 lives. He could not at present state what was the percentage with regard to population in the inspected countries. But he would do his best to obtain information on the subject. As regards our own country there were on board uncertificated ships which were not inspected by the Board of Trade 35 casualties and 54 lives lost in 10 years, while in the corresponding class of certificated ships there were only seven, casualties and only 19 lives lost. The noble and learned Lord opposite hoped that by assenting to the second reading; their Lordships would not be understood to affirm the principle of the Bill. He admitted that many matters both of principle and of detail might be objectionable. All he asked was that it should be understood that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would only commit themselves to an inquiry upon the subject, which inquiry would, he hoped, be followed by legislation.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Does the inspection extend to Her Majesty's ships?
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON: Certainly not.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRUCK BILL.—(No. 232.)
(The Lord Macnaghten.)
TRUCK BILL.—(No. 232.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading lead.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(the Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he could not allow this stage of the Bill to pass without a protest. There was a difference of opinion between the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill on the one hand, and himself on the other, as to the construction of Clause 3. If the opinion of his noble and learned Friends were correct, the clause interfered with freedom of contract, and for that interference not a reason had been given nor argument advanced.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 235.)

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 213.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would move to amend Clause 4 by omitting from the Bill certain word which he asked the House to insert in Committee, giving the magistrate, as the licensing authority, discretionary power in the matter of closing public-houses not earlier than 10 o'clock or later than 11 o'clock at night. He thought it only right to state the circumstances in which the Bill was when he consented to make the alteration. When the Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House it proposed that all public-
  458
  houses in Scotland should close at 10 o'clock. He had the advantage of hearing what could be said for and against the measure by noble Lords on the second reading, and ultimately he succeeded in devising an arrangement which appeared to him to be a fair compromise of the question. He gave Notice, after the second reading, of his intention to introduce an Amendment to the effect stated. No intimation was given by his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) as to what he intended doing. When they came to the Committee stage no Amendment was put down, but he obtained the insertion of the Amendment which he now proposed should be struck out. When they came to the Report stage his noble Friend put down an Amendment excluding from the operation of the Bill towns with a population of 50,000 and upwards, which, virtually operated as a second limitation to the Bill. The Amendment was inserted, and he had to ask their Lordships to dispense with the arrangement which he had proposed. Their Lordships would see what his grievance was. Had the Amendment of his noble Friend appeared side by side with his own he should not have moved his own, for the reason that it appeared to him a second limitation of the measure. That second limitation was one which he could not accept, and under those circumstances he had to ask their Lordships to allow the removal from the Bill of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out the words ("such hour at night of any day not earlier than ten and not later than eleven, as the licensing authority may direct") and insert instead thereof ("ten of the clock at night of any day ").—(The Earl of Camperdown)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, what the noble Earl had stated was perfectly true; and he thought the course which the noble Earl adopted in Committee was accepted by their Lordships as a compromise on the Bill as it came up to this House. He (the Marquess of Lothian) accepted the Bill on the second reading, but with the reservation that he would support the Amendment which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had stated he would give Notice of.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: He did not give Notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought the question did not admit of much doubt. When he accepted the noble Earl's Amendment he did so under reservation that he should accept it accompanied by the Amendment of which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches gave Notice. He thought it was a pity that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches did not put down, his Amendment for the Committee, so that their Lordships might have had an opportunity of considering them both together. He regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) now asked to withdraw his Amendment; for he quite agreed with him that it was a compromise. But he could not agree with him that the exemption of the towns with over 50,000 inhabitants took away from the effect of that compromise. It seemed to him that that compromise was an exceedingly valuable one, and it was as valuable in principle now as it was before. The exemption of these towns did not affect the principle, as it would be applied to the rest of the country; and he thought that with regard to many of the towns under 50,000 inhabitants the noble Earl's Amendment would be valuable. On the West Coast, for example, there were certain towns where it would be very desirable for certain periods of the year that licensed premises should be open till after 10 o'clock, although, in other periods of the year, 10 o'clock would be late enough. If the noble Earl's (the Earl of Camperdown's) Amendment was withdrawn, there would be a hard-and-fast line throughout the whole of Scotland for closing at 10 o'clock, except in the towns of over 50,000. He did not think the noble Earl had given a sufficient reason to induce them to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYwished to say one word at this moment, especially in connection with the vote he gave on the Report stage. He then voted with his noble Friend opposite, and for once he was opposed to his noble Friend on the Cross Benches. He took the Bill as it then was, and he saw that it enacted that the licensing authorities in every district, whether county or burgh, should determine themselves what the hour of closing should be—
  460
  whether it should be 10 or 11 o'clock. He could not see, therefore, why his noble Friend on the Cross Benches should think it necessary to enforce the hour of 11 in all towns of over 50,000 inhabitants. Therefore, by his vote he desired to put every district of Scotland under the jurisdiction of this particular licensing authority. Having supported his noble Friend opposite on that occasion when he wanted to have the hour in each district governed by local authority, the noble Earl in this, the last stage, asked to upset that arrangement. Therefore, though he supported him on the last occasion, he should feel it his duty to vote against him on this occasion, because he proposed now to alter his own honestly reforming clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Earl of WEMYSS, the following Schedule of towns, with their adjacent suburbs in some places, as the towns to be exempted, were inserted:—Edinburgh, Glasgow, including Crosshill; Kinning Park, Pollockshields, Pollockshields East, Govan, Govanhill, Hillhead, Maryhill, Partick, Greenock, including Gourock; Leith, Aberdeen, Dundee, Paisley.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, after the action their Lordships had taken, he did not propose to make any further Motion with regard to this Bill. As he had already stated to their Lordships, he proposed for their consideration an arrangement which appeared to him to be a very reasonable and fair compromise. That, unfortunately, had not commended itself to their Lordships. Another Amendment had been introduced, which, as he said on the second reading, had given a further limitation to the Bill. It went very much further. It absolutely excluded from the provisions of the Bill the chief towns. An Amendment to the same effect was introduced in the other House; but it was disagreed to by a very large majority of the Scotch Members; and, in the circumstances, he did not propose to make any further Motion on the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he must express his regret that his noble Friend should have thought it necessary to have practically withdrawn his Bill, because, upon the whole, he thought it very desirable that the measure should not be

  461
  allowed to drop. At first he was under the impression that the Bill should not have been brought forward at all; but that the promoters should have waited until the Government produced their measure on the whole subject of local government, whenever that might be. Now, he considered that the Bill, as it stood, was a fair compromise; and, in spite of what his noble Friend had said, he believed that it might have worked practically, and, at all events, it would have been a test Bill with regard to the discretionary power of licensing within the certain limits fixed in the measure. It would thus have been exceedingly useful as preparatory to a general measure. He could not but express his great regret that his noble Friend should consider it necessary practically to withdraw the Bill. He desired to know whether the Government intended to take any action with regard to the Bill which was now, in consequence of the course pursued by his noble Friend, in a condition of suspense?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought that the course pursued by the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) was not a very desirable one, and he should like a little time to consider what course, under the circumstances, should be adopted. He therefore did not propose at the present time to take any action with regard to the Bill, but would leave it at its present stage. The Bill would consequently still appear among the Orders of the Day.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought the House had some right to insist on a more specific answer as to the intention of the Government. He would appeal to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government for a more definite statement. The proposition of the Bill was perfectly simple, and he thought the noble Marquess ought to give them some definite information on the point. He thought they would admit that they had not much leading from the noble Marquess up to very nearly the last stage of the Bill, and he thought at the point which they had now reached they ought to be told what the Government intended to do.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(The Marquess of SALISBURY): I have been educated in the careful school of the noble Earl opposite (Earl
  462
  Granville), which enjoins a Minister never to give an answer to a Question without Notice, and I am afraid on this occasion I must ask time to consider.
  Question, "That the Bill do pass," to be put To-morrow.

SOCIALISM—RECENT LEGISLATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in rising to call attention to Socialistic legislation during the Sessions 1886–7, said, that two years ago he had brought before their Lordships the legislation of the preceding 15 years, and last year he had given Notice that he should bring to the attention of the House the Socialistic legislation of the Session. But he had been unable to do so in consequence of the untimely close of the Session. He was bringing forward this question because the Upas tree of Socialism, planted by Mr. Gladstone in 1870 in Ireland, was now overshadowing our land, and attracting every kind of bird of prey to roost in its branches. We were now going rapidly down the road without any kind of drag or check. He had entertained some hope that his noble Friends on the Government Bench would have acted as a drag upon proposals of this character. But whether it was the necessities of the political situation, or, as the noble Marquess had confessed with cynical candour, the necessity of buying the Ulster vote, Conservatism nowadays appeared to be nothing but the fifth wheel in the Socialistic coach. He could not but admire his noble Friend's foreign policy; but with respect to home affairs he was afraid that the whip and the reins were in other hands. We had now, in fact, the rivalry between the two Parties in the promotion of measures of this character, which had been predicted by the late Professor Fawcett. Now, what was Socialism? It was difficult to define, and the eminent Belgian economist, M. de Laveleye, had said that there was no such thing as a definition of Socialism. He himself, two years ago, had divided Socialism into three classes—first, the Socialism of the streets; secondly, the Socialism of the professors; and, thirdly, the Socialism of the statesman and of the Senate. In this country, happily, we had little to fear from the Socialism of the streets; and, as to the professors, the mass of the people shared in the healthy contempt expressed for that class of men by

  463
  Prince Bismarck. It was also worthy of notice that however free the professors might be in respect of the property of others, they were careful enough to preserve their own, for in their published writings there was printed on the title-page, "All rights reserved." As he said, the real danger lay in the competition of statesmen to produce measures in curtailment of individual liberty, and in the direction of the confiscation of property. That sort of legislation was, of course, brought forward under pretext of protecting the weak against the strong. The first principle of legislation ought to be to support the weak, to maintain obedience to the law, and to enforce payment of just debts. But that was not the policy of the day. The policy of the day was nominally to protect the weak; but it was really a truckling and "cottoning" to the strong—a truckling to the Saxon with his vote, and to the Irish tenant with his gun. The legislation of the present day was, as had been said of Providence, always on the side of the big battalions. There was a marked contrast between the Socialism of foreign countries and the Socialism of England. Foreign Socialists theorized, held meetings, and passed resolutions, but they practically had no influence on the legislation of their different countries. But, in England, the resolutions passed by the great congresses of trade unions and kindred gatherings of working men were very soon embodied in legislation. He recollected putting a leading question on this subject some years ago to the German Ambassador, Count Münster, and asking him whether it was not the opinion on the Continent that England would be the first country in which Socialism would become the law of the land, and his answer was—"Oh, yes; on the Continent we all think and say so." Since that time the progress on the Socialistic slide in the matter of legislation had been rapid. Think of the state of things in 1870. Lord Palmerston, who said that tenant right was landlord wrong, was dead only a few years. There was no question in 1870 of the three F's; contracts were free and as sacred as the Church was considered to be down to pre-Gladstonian times. But nowadays in almost all Bills contract was interfered with. Hardly an Act of Parliament passed that did not contain those
  464
  words that so-and-so should be law, "all contracts to the contrary notwithstanding;" and when they came to the legislation with regard to land in Ireland and in the North of Scotland, they would suppose that the Bills were of such a character that they must have been drafted by a new Parliamentary firm, formed of Jack Sheppard, Dick Turpin, and Barabbas, under the guidance and the authority of the Unjust Steward. As in that parable of the Unjust Steward, the Irish tenant was asked, "How much owest thou?" "£100." "Then take the Land Bill, and sit down quickly, and write £50." Now he held in his hand a list of the Bills which had been introduced of late years. He did not say that some of those measures were not more or less harmless, unobjectionable, or even, perhaps, desirable. But they all proceeded on the principle of the State legislating for everybody in everything, interfering with trade, commerce, and manufactures, forbidding contracts, or prescribing contracts, and, in fact, embodying proposals which 25 years ago no man in his senses would have dreamed of proposing. Both Conservatives and Liberals had had their fair share in this kind of legislation. Of measures dealing with lands and houses, mines, railways, ships, manufactures, the trade in alcohol, education, recreation, he found that there were, between 1870 and 1874, 27 Acts, between 1875 and 1879 there were two less, while between 1880 and 1884 there were 40. In 1885 there were 26 Bills of a Socialistic character; in 1886 there were 53 Bills and five Acts, and in 1887 the number rose to 107, of which 44 were backed by Conservatives, and 63 by Liberals. Of Bills affecting lands and houses there were 39, of which 12 were Conservative and 27 Liberal. They were told that the great solution of the Irish Question was the abolition of dual ownership, but in point of fact, from 1870 downwards, they had been doing their best to create dual ownership. There was an Agricultural Holdings Bill brought in by the Liberals by means of which the tenant, in defiance of his contract, was to be entitled in certain circumstances to a reduction of rent. Again, there was an Agricultural Labourers' (Wages) Bill, prohibiting the wages of the labourer being paid in

  465
  beer, cider, or alcoholic drinks; and then there was a Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill brought in by Conservatives, giving a lessee the right of purchasing the freehold by compulsion, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. Then there was a Bill before Parliament proscribing what the royalties were to be which the owner of a mine was to exact, and either by that Bill or another one, where the owner did not work his property, but left it dormant, which might be the best thing for him to do, he was to be compelled to lease or work it. Then there was a delightful Bill called the Rod Fishing Bill—a Liberal Bill—very Liberal, for it gave the public unrestricted access along the banks of all streams and lochs in Scotland, except where there was a riparian garden not exceeding 10 acres in extent, to allow them to fish with rod and line for any fish except salmon. Not only did the Bill contain this provision, but there was also a clause by which, unless the owner provided a pathway, he was to have no compensation for damages to crops or fences. Then there was the Agricultural Labourers' Holidays Bill, which was worse than the Plantagenets, because, if they prescribed what wages should be, they prescribed that a man should work for those wages; but this Bill prescribed wages to be paid for clays on which no work was to be done. The Crofters Act, again, introduced by a Conservative Government, contained two new principles, which were not to be found even in the Irish Land Bill—namely, the doing away with debt in the shape of arrears; and, secondly, the compulsory leasing of land. The unpractical character of the Waste Land Compulsory Cultivation Bill was shown in its very title; the land was at present waste, and if it was cultivated, it must be cultivated at somebody's loss, either that of the ratepayer or the individual. If there had been a possibility of the land paying, it would have been cultivated long ago. The Allotments Bill meant the compulsory taking of private property at the cost of the rates, as a bribe to the agricultural voters. In that Bill they had laid down some things which went much further than ever had been dreamed of before, and he could not believe that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor could have seen this Bill, which em-
  466
  powered land to be bought for allotments, not only for the agricultural labourers, but for the suburban population as well, living on the outskirts of a town, who were now to be found gardens at the expense of the rates. If it was necessary for anyone to have gardens, it was for those who lived in the heart of a city. All this legislation was ridiculous, absurd, impracticable, and most extravagant; and he did not know from which side of the House the worst measures came. There was the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which prescribed that bandages and stretchers should be kept where there were a certain number of workmen, and that where there were fewer it should not be necessary. This Bill would lessen the sense of personal responsibility among mineowners. Then the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill was a retrospective measure, which took away rights in a manner which would be impossible under the American Constitution. Whatever they went in for in that way of business always had to be supplemented by further legislation. Sir John Lubbock's Early Closing Bill was the first attempt on the part of Parliament to prescribe the hours during which full-grown men, sane men, were to work; and he would remind their Lordships that Mr. Hyndman had said that he looked to the time when Parliament would prescribe that three hours should be the amount of a man's day's work. The Technical Instruction Bill provided for the establishment of schools where modelling wood, carving, and other instruction was to be given, including "musical drill." Now, "musical drill" meant dancing, though it probably would not look well that it should appear as dancing in the curriculum, and be paid for out of the rates; so that "musical drill" was simply dust thrown in the eyes of the ratepayers. He found also that, in the evening schools, Welsh was to be taught, so that the language of "gallant little Wales" would not die out. The moral to be drawn from this kind of legislation was that our liberty was being lost, and that public policy was being made an apology for private plunder. According to the French saying. La démocratie c'est l'envie, and it might be added c'est le vol; and though the attack of the Socialists in this country had commenced against the land, capitalists and traders

  467
  and manufacturers ought to awaken to the fact that their turn would certainly come. On the Continent the Socialistic war was against the bourgeois and all employers of labour. The most manifest instance of the failure of this class of legislation was in Ireland, where, after a series of measures confiscating the landlords' property, failure stared the Government in the face, and those who were sought to be conciliated remained unconciliated. Those who were responsible for these measures ought to suffer the keenest of all remorse—the remorse of feeling that crimes had been committed in vain. He was sorry that the Front Opposition Bench was not more fully occupied — [Lord DENMAN and Lord MOUNT-TEMPLE were the sole occupants]—for a few nights ago his observations in defence of freedom of contract were received with sneers and jeers by noble Lords sitting on that Bench. The principle of free contract, which was the very soul of commercial enterprise, was barred in every possible way, nominally for the sake of the welfare of the masses, but really for the purchase of votes. Both sides of politicians were responsible, but the tone of the two differed materially. There was a time not so very long since when the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston walked in the path of economic virtue. In 1870, however, they went after Mr. Gladstone, just as the Jews, according to Scripture, went after strange gods, and had gone from bad to worse, until they now found them—politically—soliciting every man who could vote. If he thought that this change of views was due to a bonâ fide conviction on their part he would respect them; but it was known that that was not the case. Their conversion was as sudden as that of St. Paul; but it was not brought about by a light from heaven, but by the flash of an Irish murderer's gun, which they had not got the courage to face. The Conservative Party now appeared to have gone in for the same line of business; but they, at least, had the decency not to sneer and jeer at those who, however feebly, endeavoured to uphold the sound economic doctrines of the past, which, until recently, had been the basis of all legislation. He had said that there was nothing to dread from the Socialism of the street and the froth and scum thrown
  468
  off there. The Socialism of the stree was not making considerable progress in this country. At the same time, there was something significant in the meetings which were held in Hyde Park, one of which assembled yesterday near the Marble Arch, and in the great number of debating clubs in which Socialistic doctrines were advocated. In many of these clubs there was a close imitation of Parliamentary forms—there was a Government and an Opposition and Ministers of State. There was one in particular, which met near where their Lordships were assembled, and was called the Charing Cross Debating Society. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury was Mr. Champion; Mrs. Besant also held office; and the Chief Secretary was the Rev. Stewart Headlam, editor of The Christian Society. [The noble Earl then read extracts from the Queen's Speech, in which deep regret was expressed at the unequal distribution of property, at the luxury of the rich and idle classes, which tended to the depression of the poor, and to the wasteful and unbusinesslike management of Public Departments.] Taking all these symptoms into consideration, and taking also into consideration the conduct of Members of Parliament, and even some Members of their Lordships' House, he could not think that the outlook was very encouraging. Where, then, were we to look for hope? He believed there was still hope, and that hope was to be found in the conduct of the great body of the people on the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, when it was clearly demonstrated how thorough was the loyalty and how sound the heart of the people of this country. It was not to the Leaders in political life that we must look. They must look elsewhere. In a speech made in "another place" by a man of conspicuous ability and great oratorical power, who possessed immense influence with the masses of the people, he was glad to find the true doctrines of self-reliance and individual responsibility laid down with great force. In a speech against the proposal to prohibit the work of pit-brow women, Mr. Bradlaugh denounced the attempt to make men and women moral by legislation, and spoke of the general tendency in modern times to diminish the sense of personal responsibility. It was to men

  469
  like Mr. Bradlaugh, and not to the occupants of the two Front Benches, that we must look for the enforcement of just and sound principles on such questions as the non-interference of the State in private bargains. If the Government had the courage to speak out as Mr. Bradlaugh had done, and to say that legislation was hurtful which checked individual enterprize, or diminished commercial responsibility—hurtful above all to those for whose supposed benefit it was carried, then, in the midst of this Socialistic legislation, which was sweeping away all the old landmarks of enlightened legislation, they need not despair. In conclusion, he thanked their Lordships for having listened so patiently to what he could not help making a long story.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extending the right of voting at Parliamentary elections to duly qualified women —Was presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a. (No. 236.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.