Sitting of 8 February 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Colchester, v. Taverner John Miller, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Dublin University Professorships.
Ordered—Metropolitan Poor; Trades Unions; Criminal Law; Dublin University Professorships *; Mines*; Libel.*
First Reading—Criminal Law [8]; Metropolitan Poor [9]; Dublin University Professorships* [10]; Libel* [11].

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Viscount ROYSTON)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
"I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
"You may rely with confidence on My cordial co-operation in all measures which are calculated to enlarge and strengthen the free institutions of the Country, to improve the Administration of the Law, and to promote the welfare and prosperity of all classes of My subjects"

INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House Copy of the Minutes of the Chief Commissioner of Oudh and of the Governor General, on the Report of Mr. Davies, the Financial Commissioner, on the rights of the Ryots, and of any Orders passed by the Home Government of India on Sir John Lawrence's decision whether the

145
Home Government, as stated in the Indian Journals, has called for a Report on the late famine in Bengal; and, whether attention has been directed to the following points:—1st. The extent of country affected, and the mortality caused; 2nd. The causes of the famine, and how far avoidable in future by works of irrigation; 3rd. The amount of warning of its approach, and how far the existing machinery of revenue administration is adapted to give the needed warning; 4th. The measures of precaution adopted by the Local Government of Bengal on receipt of such warning?
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: With respect to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, no orders have as yet been authorized or passed by the Queen's Government on the subject of Sir John Lawrence's decision. The Home Government have the subject under consideration; and I hope that a despatch will be shortly sent out. As soon as it is it will be laid on the table of the House, with the Minutes of the Chief Commissioner of Oude and of the Governor General, on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman's inquiry refers. With respect to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, the Queen's Government has ordered a Commission to be issued to inquire into the causes of the famine in Bengal, and the mortality which that famine produced, and that Commission has been issued by the Governor General. By the news of the last mail we have every ground to hope that the Commission will send in a speedy Report. The instructions given to the Commission were very large, but they substantially included all the points referred to by the hon. Member.
MR. BRIGHTasked the noble Lord to state whether the Commission was composed entirely of members of the Indian Government, or whether there was any portion of it independent, so that it would be likely to give a little more confidence to the country.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I do not exactly know what meaning the hon. Gentleman attaches to the words "Indian Government." The President of the Commission is a Judge. A gentleman connected with the revenue administration and a colonel are the other members of the Commission; and I believe the names of all three will secure for the Commission the confidence of the Indian community and of the public generally. I may mention that the President is Judge Campbell, one of the best names in India.

CATTLE PLAGUE IN THE METROPOLIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he can give the House any information as to the cause and extent of the recent outbreak of Cattle Plague in the Metropolis?
  MR. CORRY: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, relating to the cause of the recent outbreak of cattle disease in the metropolis, I beg to inform him that the Privy Council caused an immediate and searching inquiry into the subject, but as yet it has received no satisfactory information. In respect to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question—the extent of the disease—it appears that forty-six animals had been exposed to the infection, the whole of which were slaughtered under pressure of the Privy Council, or the local authority, but not until twenty-eight had caught the disease. The first case occurred on the 28th of last month. No fresh case has been reported.

CENTRAL INDIA PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked the Secretary of State for India, When the distribution of the Central India Prize Money (Lord Strathnairn's captures) will take place; and, what is the reason of the delay in distributing the same?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: The principal cause of the long delay in distributing the proceeds of Lord Strathnairn's captures has been the very protracted litigation which has taken place with respect to them; but after the conclusion of that litigation a Treasury Warrant, under Sign Manual, was issued, and sent by us, last year, to India, with a very strong admonition as to the necessity of rapidly distributing the money. I have not heard whether the final steps have been taken; but I believe the distribution will be made very shortly.

THE PROFESSORSHIP OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the vacancy in the Professorship of the University of Dublin has been filled up?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he did not believe that the vacancy in the Professorship of the University of Dublin had been filled up.

OUR MONETARY LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When—referring to the pledge of the President of the Board of Trade last Session that the Government would in the recess look into the causes of the Commercial Panic and into the operation of our Monetary Laws, "with the earnest desire, if possible, to legislate on the subject," "or to invite the attention of the House to the subject," at the earliest period—he proposes to put the House in possession of any evidence taken, and of the views and intentions of the Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is not our intention to place any evidence on the matter before the House, nor to legislate on the subject of the cause of the monetary panic. I think it will be a convenient opportunity, when the hon. Gentleman moves for a Committee on the subject of the Limited Liability Acts, to state the general views of the Government as to the course it may deem it necessary to take in the matter.

THE HOLY SEE AND RUSSIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House the Circular Despatch of Prince Gortschakoff to the Russian Representatives abroad relative to the breaking off of the relations between the Holy See and the Imperial Government, and to the abrogation of the Concordat of 1847, together with the Documents annexed, Extracts from which have appeared in the Newspapers of this country?
  LORD STANLEY: The paper to which my hon. Friend refers has been published by the Russian Government; it has been printed at length in many of the Continental journals, and I believe the substance of it has appeared in several of the English newspapers. It is therefore quite accessible to all the world; and as it relates to a matter with which the English Government has nothing to do—namely, the relations between Russia and the Holy See—I would ask the hon.
  148
  Gentleman to consider whether it would not be a waste of money to print the document, unless there should be a general desire on the part of the House that it should be put in the hands of hon. Members. If there is such a desire on the part of the House, of course, we have no objection; or if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Gentleman wishes to reprint and circulate it he may have access to a copy at the Foreign Office.
  Moved, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday."

LAW OF FORFEITURE.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce a measure for the abolition of the Law of Forfeiture on convictions of Felony, founded on the provisions of the Bill which obtained the assent of this House in the last Session? He remarked, that when the Conservative party was in Office in 1859, two distinguished Members of the Government, the present Lord Chief Baron Kelly and the present Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, gave their assent to a Bill for the abolition of the Law of Forfeiture, and had it not been for the circumstance of a change of Administration, that Bill would probably have been passed. The House would also remember that he had brought this subject under its notice in 1864, when he introduced a Bill, the principle of which was affirmed by the House on the second reading. He then had great pleasure in acceding to the request which was made to him, to leave the further conduct of the measure in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond and the Attorney General. His measure was received with great favour on both sides of the House, and was generally regarded as a very important measure of legal Reform. That Bill went up to the House of Lords, but he regretted to say that circumstances occurred which prevented its passing. The present system was fraught with great injustice, and acted most injuriously on the mining interests of the country at large. A deputation from the traders of South Staffordshire had waited upon the late Government on the subject, and stated that they were unwilling to engage in trade from the fear of exposing themselves to the penalties of conviction for manslaughter in consequence of accidents from causes over which they had no control.

149
So strongly did he feel on this subject, that he was determined, in case he should not receive a favourable reply from the right hon. Gentleman, to re-introduce the Bill he had brought forward in 1864. He hoped, however, that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve him from the necessity of doing so, for a matter so important could be more satisfactorily dealt with by Government than by a private Member.
MR. WALPOLE: I have referred to the Bills of 1865 and 1866, and have found that, although they both have the same object, they contain very different provisions. The subject is certainly an important one, but the importance of the object sought to be attained depended mainly upon the provisions to be comprehended in the Bill. Nobody can doubt that not a more careful person than my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General could have been engaged in preparing such a measure as this, and therefore I shall not be inclined to doubt any provisions which he may have inserted in the Bill. At the same time, there are provisions in the Bill of last year which I should like to consider with the present Attorney General before introducing another measure this year. The probability is, that after a consultation with my learned Friend, I shall be prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject, having the same object in view as the former Bills, though, perhaps, with not exactly the same provisions.
MR. HADFIELDurged the propriety of speedy legislation, as the principle of the Bills presented on the subject had received the general assent of both Houses.
Motion agreed to: House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.
SUPPLY—Order for Committee read.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to give some information to the House on a matter of considerable importance, What will be the course of business on Monday, and what Orders he proposes to place on the paper in order that he may be able to open the important subject of which he has given notice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I intend to put on the paper the
  150
  subject which I mentioned I should bring forward the first on Monday next—namely, to consider the paragraph in the Queen's Speech with regard to the Representation of the People. I hope the House will not press me to go into detail now as to the Motion I propose to make, as such a course might lead, perhaps, to misconception and misapprehension of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I trust that the House will excuse me doing so at the present time. I shall therefore confine myself to saying that the first Order of the Day for Monday will be one in effect to call the attention of the House to the subject to which I have referred, which is mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I shall then enter fully and fairly into the exposition of the subject and the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

SUPPLY.
Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred:—Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST HEADING.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and other classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the distribution over the Metropolis of portions of the charge for Poor Relief; and for other purposes relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis, said: In bringing before the House the subject of which I have given notice, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in my explanation of the provisions of the Bill which I shall have to submit to the House. At the same time, I trust that the House, admitting the great importance of the subject, will allow mc to make those remarks which are necessary, in order that they may have fully before them the scheme which I am about to propose for the management of the poor in the metropolis. It is not my intention, on this occasion, to go much into the past. I think we had much better avoid discussions which can lead to no good result with respect to

  151
  what has been done on former occasions. But it will be necessary to some extent to refer to the past history of what has taken place in respect to the management of the metropolitan poor, in order to explain the reasons why I have felt it to be my duty to submit this question to the consideration of the House. I will not go very far back in my retrospect. A Committee sat upon the question of Poor Relief, not only as it affected the metropolis, but England generally. It began its inquiries in 1861, and reported in 1864. Now, it is a remarkable thing—very remarkable, it appears to me when I look upon what has occurred since—that nothing was brought before that Committee tending to implicate the management of the workhouses in the metropolis in the charges which subsequently created so much excitement not only in London, but in the country also. Nothing was brought before that Committee tending to show that the metropolitan workhouses in their management presented features of a disadvantageous character as compared with those in the country generally. On the contrary, there was every reason to suppose that those workhouses were properly managed, and that the treatment of the poor inmates did not demand intervention. Of course, then, the Report of that Committee did not touch upon the circumstances that have since been disclosed, inasmuch as there was nothing pressed upon the Committee at all relating to them; indeed, they rather expressed their satisfaction with the medical treatment of the poor generally, and said, I think, that it required no alteration, and that nothing further was necessary to be done in order to bring the medical treatment of the poor generally into a more satisfactory state. They said, however, that not only in the metropolis, but throughout the country, the central authority of the Poor Law Board ought to be confirmed, and, if possible, strengthened, and that it might be done, in one way, by lengthening the term for which the Commission was appointed. They went on further to say that it was specially required that for classification in workhouses—and that without reference to the metropolis only—more powers should be given to the Central Board—
  "It appears to the Committee that the union workhouse is insufficient for the proper classification of the inmates, and they consider it desirable that greater power should be given to the Central Board than what they now possess, to require the
  152
  guardians to make adequate arrangement for maintaining such classification in the workhouses."
  In 1864, then, we had arrived at this point. After a long and elaborate inquiry, conducted by highly-qualified judges of the Poor Law, the conclusion was arrived at that the Central Board was without sufficient authority for the classification of the poor, and generally for the proper administration of the poor relief throughout the country. Towards the end of 1864, the case of Timothy Daly occurred in the Holborn Workhouse; it was the first of those cases which so much attracted the attention of the country; it was followed by that of Gibson in the workhouse of St. Giles, in 1865. In April of the same year, a letter written by one of the nurses at the Rotherhithe Workhouse called attention to a very painful state of circumstances there; and finally, in 1866, the same nurse called attention to the state of the Strand Workhouse, where she had been lately engaged as a nurse. Inquiries took place with reference to Daly and Gibson's cases, and in 1865 the Rotherhithe guardians inquired into the statements made by that nurse. No action was then taken by the Poor Law Board on the evidence taken by those guardians; but in 1866, upon the requisition of the Workhouse Infirmary Association, official inquiries were made respecting the condition of the sick in the Strand, Rotherhithe, and Padding-ton Workhouses by inspectors, whose reports were exceedingly adverse to the management of the sick in these workhouses and caused a great sensation throughout the country—perhaps a greater sensation than was justified by all the circumstances. "When one considers that in the metropolis there are thirty-nine workhouses, containing a population of from 25,000 to 30,000 persons, it would not strike one as remarkable that there should have been four cases in which great hardship and wrong had been inflicted. No doubt many things were revealed which showed that there was necessity for interference, but these particular cases, each seen in varied shapes, as it were, in a kaleidoscope, through the comments of the press, caused a sensation, which if not unreasonable or unnatural, was perhaps disproportioned to the circumstances under which they occurred, and blame was imputed to the guardians, not only of the workhouses in question, but of the

  153
  workhouses of the metropolis generally. Every one must admit that the office of a guardian is one of great difficulty and delicacy. He has to stand between the poor and the ratepayers; he is continually pressed on one side and the other; and in London he is watched with excessive scrutiny by the press, particularly after the occurrence of cases like those named; through these discussions he becomes more fearful of acting on his own responsibility, and there is a vacillation in his movements which there would not have been if he was left more alone. At the same time, I will not say it is not advantageous that there should be the fullest scrutiny into every transaction of the kind referred to, and that the fullest publicity should be given to all the circumstances connected with institutions which so materially affect the welfare of the poor and the interests of the ratepayers, both of the metropolis and the country generally. During 1865 and 1866, whilst these things were going on, a well-conducted newspaper, The Lancet, thought proper to employ, at its own expense, certain medical men, who made full inquiry into the administration of the sick departments of the metropolitan workhouses. I should be the last person to complain of the mode and manner in which that inquiry was conducted, it being conducted in a tone and spirit very different from that which characterized the comments of some other portions of the press. On the whole, The Lancet founded its animadversions on facts and incidents that really occurred, and it did not indulge in mere sensational writing as some other papers did. The articles in The Lancet naturally made a great impression, because they called attention to the facts that the construction of the sick wards in the workhouses was bad in itself; that in the main they were overcrowded; that the nursing was bad and wholly inadequate; the ventilation in almost every respect was defective; and that the furniture, appliances, clothing, and cooking arrangements were bad, and not at all appropriate to the wants of the sick. In May, 1865, in consequence of the prominence which the subject of nursing had acquired, a circular was sent out by my right hon. Predecessor, calling the attention of the metropolitan guardians to the inadequacy of the staffs, and calling upon them to appoint at least one paid nurse to superintend each sick ward, and also to appoint paid assistant nurses who might wait
  154
  with more responsibility on the patients. Subsequently, a full investigation into the state of the sick wards was undertaken by the Poor Law Board itself, through its medical officer and inspector, Dr. Edward Smith, and Mr. Farnall, inspector of the metropolitan district; and their inquiry did not terminate until just before the change of Government which took place last year. Their Reports were, however, in the hands of my Predecessor, but no action had been taken upon them up to the time that I succeeded to the office I now hold. Hon. Members who take an interest in this subject will find that Mr. Farnall's Report is based upon one supposition, and Dr. Edward Smith's upon another. Mr. Farnall's Report is based upon what he called the requirements of medical science—namely, that certain medical men of the greatest eminence urged that 1,000 feet cubical space was required for each inmate of a sick ward; whilst, on the other hand, Dr. Edward Smith's Report was based on the understanding that the requirements of the Poor Law Board was what he had to see to. It appeared that up to this time 500 feet cubic space was considered sufficient for a sick ward, and he thought it was his duty to inquire how it had worked. Both, however, came to the conclusion that the workhouse infirmaries are overcrowded, that the nursing is defective, that the appliances are also defective, that the ventilation is insufficient, and that great reform is needed in the sick wards of the workhouse infirmaries. That was the state of things when I had the honour to be appointed to the office which I now hold. At that time my attention was called in this House to those cases to which I have referred, and others, in which it was said that great negligence, cruelty, and hardship had occurred to individuals in these workhouses, and I then said it would be my first duty to endeavour to mitigate, with the powers I possessed, the evils which then existed. I stated, at the same time, that I felt that the time must come when I must ask the House for powers to provide permanent remedies for evils which without I could only temporarily moderate. It has been asked in many quarters why I did not put in force the compulsory powers that belong to the Poor Law Board. In my opinion there has not yet arisen occasion to put them in force, because nearly every-thing I have asked has been done, or is in the course of being done, and it would

  155
  have been difficult, if not impossible, to have proceeded by mandamus in the case of medical officers, legal and technical questions and questions of contract would undoubtedly have been raised. No doubt the Poor Law Board possesses the power to enforce the appointment of officers, but the power must be exercised carefully, and strictly within the limits of the law; and I thought that, as the time was approaching when I could ask the House for further powers, it would be unwise and imprudent to involve myself in a collision in which I might get the worst of it, and which might give rise to a feeling that I had used powers I did not possess, or that I had used legal powers unnecessarily. Besides, on the whole, the guardians were acting in a fair spirit; they were adopting the suggestions that were made to them, and were endeavouring to carry them out. At the same time, I am bound to say that the two inspectors who then had charge of the metropolitan district, Mr. Corbett and Dr. Markham, discharged their duties in the most indefatigable manner, and were deserving of every praise. They visited the workhouses by night and by day, and consulted the guardians, endeavouring by firmness and conciliation to obtain the remedies that would mitigate the evils which had been justly complained of, and simultaneously procuring information to enable me to propose legislation on this very important subject. I may be permitted to call attention to the letter of Mr. Ernest Hart which appeared in one of the daily papers, because he is a gentleman who has devoted his attention to the reform of our workhouses, and particularly the workhouse infirmaries. I am not going to put forward anything that I may have done other than to say that I have endeavoured to do my best; but I will take it on Mr. Hart's admission that much has been effected already in the way of temporary remedies—ventilation has been improved, paid nurses have been provided, more medical officers have been provided, and the furniture and other appliances required for the sick have been very much improved. Having made these preliminary remarks, I come to the permanent arrangements proposed for the metropolitan workhouses. The inquiries of Dr. Markham, a skilled physician, well acquainted with hospital treatment and the proper working of infirmaries, have been continually directed to the state of the workhouse infirmaries in the metropolitan district and their re-
  156
  quirements, and from his reports and other information, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing absolutely definite on the vexed question of floor and cubical space. I determined, therefore, to call in persons who were qualified to give a distinct opinion on the subject, in order that when I came before the House I might not have to argue on disputed theories; and I am sure the House will not say that in consulting the gentlemen I did, gentlemen whose attention had been specially called to the London Infirmaries, I did so with the view of confirming any preconceived notions of my own, especially as one gentleman who was applied to, but could not act, was well known to be strongly in favour of the largest amount of cubical space. That was Dr. Parkes. I applied to Sir Thomas Watson, President of the College of Physicians, to whom I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for the zeal and ability with which he applied himself to this subject, as though it were the only one before him. There was also Dr. Acland, of Oxford, whose only object was for the public good, offered to come up and take part in the Committee, together with Dr. Sibson, Mr. Charles Hawkins, Mr. T. Holmes, Captain Galton, Dr. Randall, Dr. Smith, Dr. Markham, and Mr. Corbett. They visited the workhouses by day and by night—they tested the atmosphere of the sick wards in the different workhouse infirmaries, and thus obtained data upon which they have founded their conclusions, and I cannot but call attention to the fairness of the mode in which they have dealt with the question. They did not treat the question simply as one of theory, but went fully into the subject, ascertaining the kind of diseases prevalent in the workhouse infirmaries, and with the knowledge that there would be a removal of certain classes of sick—for example, small-pox and fever patients—from those infirmaries altogether, whose absence would, of course, make a material difference in the calculation. One point is remarkable enough. It is that however overcrowded these infirmaries may be, none of those diseases appear there which are known to result from overcrowding. There are no hospital diseases, and it has attracted attention abroad as well as at home how very few are the cases of puerperal fever, which so often decimate lying-in hospitals, and in Trance, I believe, cause death to an extent of which we have no conception. Even in our own lying-in

  157
  hospitals these cases occur to a much larger extent than in the metropolitan workhouses. I will now read a few sentences which form the practical groundwork of the Report—
  "The problem to be solved really is what is the amount of floor and cubical space which shall not be too little on the one hand, nor more than enough on the other—not too little for the health and comfort of the pauper inmates, sick or well, not too much for the means of the humblest ratepayer. This practical aspect of the question the Committee have deemed it their duty to keep steadily in view, always with an inclination, if the balance cannot be strictly adjusted, towards the side of the sick and poor. It is fit that these houses be made safe, decent, and commodious; it is neither necessary nor expedient that they be made inviting."
  Upon that basis Sir Thomas Watson and the gentlemen associated with him arrived at their principal conclusions. Before calling attention to those conclusions, I will refer for a moment to the enormous changes which have taken place in the metropolitan workhouses. They were originally built at an enormous cost, and I find that since 1834—I do not know what they had cost up to that time—upwards of £1,000,000 has been spent upon them. When they were built it was not contemplated that they should become mere asylums for the aged, the sick, and the infirm; but these are now the main occupants of the workhouses, and the able-bodied are practically almost unknown. Assuming that the able-bodied are only those under sixty—an unreasonable period, perhaps as many men are quite able-bodied when beyond that age—it appears that there are only 889 able-bodied men in the London workhouses, and of women about 2,000. Besides this, it must be remembered that at the time when this inquiry was instituted, great changes had arisen in the various theories formerly entertained upon these matters. Former Reports and recommendations made show that a very much smaller space was thought requisite for the sick than is now almost universally looked upon as desirable. Thus the condition of things is very different from that existing when these workhouses were designed. They were designed as workhouses under the new Poor Law to deter able-bodied persons from going into them; it is found that they do act, in a great degree, as a check in this way; but now they are places chiefly for the sick and aged poor, the very persons whom the country would
  158
  wish to see well cared for. Then, the Poor Law Board itself does not seem to have been always of the same opinion respecting the cubical space and the nursing. Now the cry throughout the country and the metropolis is that you must have as many paid nurses as you can get; but in a Return moved for by the Earl of Carnarvon in the other House, occurs this letter, dated the 11th of February, 1850, in which the Poor Law Board urge the guardians at Croydon not to appoint too many paid nurses—
  "Three at least of the paid servants in this hospital must be discontinued. In the greater number of country unions there is no paid nurse, and in none it is believed more than one. In pronouncing upon this point the Poor Law Board attach more weight to the results of experience than to the opinion of the medical officer of the Croydon Workhouse, though supported by that of three of his professional friends. If, for instance, the infirmary of the Wandsworth and Clapham union workhouse can be, as it is, perfectly well managed under one paid nurse, why should the medical officers say that five paid nurses are required in the much smaller infirmary of the Croydon Workhouse."
  I only quote that in order to show that we can only act up to the lights we have, and that some fifteen or sixteen years ago medical men and the Poor Law Board itself believed there was much less necessity for greater space, paid nurses, and other appliances than is now thought requisite. We should not, therefore, attack our predecessors unnecessarily upon this subject, because we should probably have acted at that time just as they did. I come now to the conclusions of the Committee. They say, respecting the classes of sick poor of whom I have spoken—
  "The Committee, after full and anxious consideration of the subject, have recommended that a space of not less than 850 cubic feet on an average, with six feet across the beds, should be provided for each sick inmate; of not less than 1,200 feet for each 'offensive case' in the 'separation' wards; the infirm wards should have at least 500 feet with day room; the surgical wards, 850; and the lying-in-wards, 1,200; for general wards, 300 would be sufficient; but for fever and small-pox wards, 2,000, and that they should be removed to separate hospitals."
  But the great point upon which they dwell, and upon which the whole question turns, is ventilation. It is stated, upon authority which I cannot doubt, that, whatever amount of space you may have, if the ventilation be not good, all your expense and trouble are thrown away, and that it is idle to increase the space unless you improve

  159
  the ventilation. Accordingly, the Committee gave great attention to this subject, and to the best mode of insuring proper ventilation. The appendices to the Report are not yet perfect; but I hope in the course of this week, or the beginning of the week after, to lay before the House all the data upon which these gentlemen have proceeded. The House will find them worthy of attention, and they show that you cannot by merely adding to space overcome the difficulty of obtaining fresh air. You must not give air to the patients cold or in draughts, because to these old people draughts would be more dangerous than overcrowding and heat; and if you give them warm air, you must have some artificial system by which the air is brought into proper condition so as to be adapted to their weak state. In one of the great hospitals in France—the Lariboisiere—2,000 cubic feet are allowed for every inmate, and yet from its defective ventilation it is said by Dr. Bristowe and Mr. Holmes, in their Report on Hospitals, to be worse than the old infirmary at Leeds. This space being then required by the Committee, and accepted by me as the data on which I am bound to proceed, I have made up my mind to act on these conclusions, and on them I shall proceed to legislate; and then the question arises, how is the space to be obtained? We have in the metropolitan workhouses about 26,240 persons. That excludes the inmates of, the Richmond and Croydon Workhouses, which are not properly comprised within the metropolitan district, though within the inspecting powers of the metropolitan inspectors. There are temporarily disabled, 7,046; old and infirm, 13,685; able-bodied, 2,899; children above two years of age, 2,150; infants, 1,015. Out of the whole of these, 1,977 are imbeciles or lunatics, and form a separate and distinct class. Now, there is a very remarkable thing in these workhouses, which shows to their credit—I refer to the great age to which people may live in them. There have been as inmates for the period of one year and upwards persons above the age of 70 to the extent of 4,783; from 75 to 80, 3,812; from 80 to 90, 903. Those who have been from five to ten years inmates number 1,352, and those above ten years, 857. I saw in one of the workhouses, in the City of London union, what Sir George Lewis would have told us was an impossibility—an old man of 100 years of age. I
  160
  believe this is a well-authenticated case, and judging from appearances he was likely to live for some time. Well, the question is, how am I to get room for all the sick poor of the metropolis? In the first place, I propose that the lunatics and imbeciles shall be removed and placed in separate establishments; then that the children above two years of age shall go to separate schools, and having done that, I fear I shall find myself still with a considerable deficiency of space under the new circumstances. We have to provide for 34,000 persons, including children. How is that to be done? It must be done by additional buildings. I propose to do it in accordance with the original intention of those who passed the Poor Law Act. So long ago as before the formation of the Gilbert Unions, a Resolution of the House was passed which shows what was in the mind of the House at that time; it was in favour of the establishment of
  "A proper hospital, separate workhouse, and house of correction in each district, as the most easy and effective method of relieving the impotent, employing the industrious, and reforming the vicious poor,"
  and it was evidently not supposed that the aged and infirm would be brought in who were principally receiving outdoor relief at that time. In 1834, what did the Commissioners say? Their intentions are given by Mr. Edwin Chadwick in a late number of Fraser's Magazine, where he says they never intended to have large workhouses, but separate ones for separate classes; but in carrying out their intention they seem to have come to a different conclusion; for, so far as I can see, no step was taken in that direction by the Commissioners at that time, and I suppose that Mr. Chadwick must have been overruled, and that an entirely different scheme was adopted. In their Report we find it recommended that the Central Board
  "Should be empowered to cause any number of parishes to be incorporated for the purpose of workhouse management, and for providing new workhouses where necessary, and to assign to those workhouses separate classes of poor. That the requisite classification and superintendence may be better obtained in separate buildings than under one roof. Each class might thus receive appropriate treatment; the old might enjoy their indulgencies without torment from the boisterous, the children be educated, and the able-bodied subjected to such courses of labour as will repel the indolent or vicious."
  That principle was, in fact, carried out in

  161
  the District Schools Act, the 7 & 8 Vict.c. 101, and I am taking no new step now in what I propose, for in 1841 Earl Russell, then Lord John Russell, together with Mr. Baring and Mr. Labouchere, brought in a Bill, in which it was provided that parishes or unions might have separate buildings for the insane and infirm poor, as well as separate schools for children. My main object is to classify the different inmates of workhouses, and I hope to do that, in the first instance, by building such an establishment or establishments as will be necessary for 2,000 lunatics and imbeciles. I find that my view on this subject is supported by the Lunacy Commissioners themselves; for in 1859 they published a supplement entirely devoted to this question of removing the lunatics and imbeciles from the workhouses. I will, for a moment, call the attention of the House to a few short passages. After pointing out the evils attendant on the detention of lunatics in workhouses, they say—
  "To remedy many of the evils adverted to would, in our opinion, be impracticable, so long as insane patients are detained in workhouses, whether mixed with other inmates, or placed in distinct wards. The construction and management of workhouses present insurmountable obstacles to the proper treatment of the disease of insanity; and, therefore, the removal of the majority of the patients and the adoption of stringent measures to prevent the admission of others have become absolutely necessary. … To secure for the insane poor now improperly retained in workhouses due care and treatment elsewhere, it will be necessary to add greatly to the existing accommodation in county and borough asylums. Many of these are already upon so large a scale as not to admit of the necessary extension, while some are of a size much beyond that which is compatible with their efficient working. After full consideration of the subject in all its bearings, we are of opinion that the best mode of making provision for the insane poor who cannot be received into the present asylums will be by the erection of inexpensive buildings adapted for the residence of idiotic, chronic, and harmless patients, in direct connection with, or at a convenient distance from, the existing institutions. These auxiliary asylums, which should be under the management of the present visiting justices, would be intermediate between union workhouses and the principal curative asylums. The cost of building need not, in general, much exceed one-half of that incurred in the erection of ordinary asylums; and the establishment of officers and attendants would be upon a smaller and more economical scale than those required in the principal asylums. Without the adoption of measures such as we have suggested no effectual remedy can, in our opinion, be found for the present evils which so urgently press for correction."
  162
  I might quote at greater length; but those who are interested will find the whole Report worth perusal. I have spoken to one of the Commissioners, who tells me that it not unfrequently happens that persons who might be easily cured if put at once under medical treatment, are after a few days in a workhouse rendered absolutely incurable. I am sure that an evil of the kind to which I now refer is one to which this House will, if it be possible, apply a remedy. The next class to be removed is that of persons suffering from fever and small-pox. At present the great majority of those cases are sent to the hospitals specially devoted to the cure of these diseases; but it often happens that these hospitals are full, and I am bound to say that it is a matter of real necessity to provide some directly under Poor Law management. I would therefore propose to take or hire such buildings as will accommodate from 700 to 800 of those patients. I hope and believe that the time will come when by proper attention to the use of those remedies which science has discovered—vaccination on the one hand, and good sanitary arrangements on the other—we may be able to dispense with those hospitals almost entirely. We cannot, however, do so at present; and it is a most material thing to do for the people themselves, and for others in the workhouse, that to avoid risk and spreading the disease they should be removed. With respect to the children, almost all the metropolitan unions and parishes have district or separate schools. There are six instances in which we shall, no doubt, find no difficulty in obtaining their sanction—though we shall not require it—that the children shall be removed to separate schools like those which the inspectors have certified as being carried on on a most admirable system. In them the children are trained not only in the ordinary walks of industry, but the instrumental bands of some of our regiments are drawn from these schools. I am told that almost the whole band of one of our regiments came from the Stepney School. I have not been there, but am told that it is a most interesting sight to witness the training of the children. Now, am I to give up the existing workhouses? I think not. I believe, from the Reports made, that there are twenty-four of the present workhouses which may be easily and satisfactorily adapted for all classes of poor, except those which I have before described.

  163
  There is one thing, however, which we must peremptorily insist on—namely, the treatment of the sick in the infirmaries being conducted on an entirely separate system; because the evils complained of have mainly arisen from the workhouse management, which must to a great degree be of a deterrent character, having been applied to the sick, who are not proper objects for such a system. That is one thing which I should insist upon as an absolute condition. I propose, therefore, that power shall be given to combine such districts as the Poor Law Board may think proper—whether parishes and parishes, unions and unions, or unions and parishes—under a more complete system of inspection and control, and to interest in the conduct of those establishments persons who might be inclined to give them their attention. I propose that we should be able to appoint nominees on the Boards of Guardians, providing they never exceed one-third of the whole body, and are-rated at not less than £100 a year. These nominees would, I hope, be persona taking a deep interest in the management of the establishments, and they would exercise a closer supervision than can be exercised by an inspector, whose visitation can only take place a certain number of times in a year. This proposal is, I am aware, a novel one, and will probably raise some objectors; but the House will bear in mind that in other parts of the country justices of the peace, acting practically as the largest ratepayers in the union, have seats at the Board. I propose that gentlemen residing in the several districts, and who are justices of the peace, though not perhaps filling that office in a metropolitan county, should be eligible to be placed upon these Boards, the nominee portion, however, never exceeding one-third of the whole. I know I shall be asked, from what I have seen in the press, and what has been said at public meetings, in respect to a plan that has been spoken of for workhouse and infirmary alteration, "Why do you not have six or seven large hospitals, each containing 1,000 inmates, and conducted upon the principle of hospitals pure and simple?" Now, there are several reasons why I do not propose this. In the first place, it would involve great expense and render useless the existing workhouses. Secondly, there is the objection which has been pointed out by many eminent medical men, that whereas
  164
  in our smaller establishments, notwithstanding all their defects, gangrene, erysipelas, and puerperal fever do not intrude, in the large hospitals those diseases not only intrude, but are often permanently fixed there. Another objection is that these establishments ought to be readily accessible to the people of the district; because the people admitted into them are frequently in a transition state, and persons of advanced age are in the infirmary to-day and out to-morrow, in this week and out the next, and to remove them to and from a distant hospital would be a much more prejudicial course than to transfer them to an hospital near at hand, and capable, under proper discipline, of being as well conducted as the larger establishments. I hope under the new system to ensure, in cases where there are a certain number of sick, resident medical officers, in all cases separate and independent matrons, and paid nurses. But I know that we cannot by paying get trained nurses. Miss Nightingale says no such thing exists as a body of trained nurses at present: we must train them. Well, if we cannot get them, we must do the next best thing—we must use the best material; available—we must pay persons responsible to us, and in that way having got the best we can, by having these separate establishments under suitable matrons, we may probably educate nurses for our needs. I believe that suitable persons could in many cases be found in the workhouses who would gladly seize the opportunity of earning a good livelihood. I believe also in the schools young persons might be trained to nursing, and thus provided with means of earning a living in their future life, while they conferred a great benefit upon the class from which they came. This, of course, would be a work of time; and, after all, the large hospitals would experience the same difficulty. I will here call the attention of the House to a very curious circumstance which is referred to in the last Report of the Poor Law Board. In Liverpool a gentleman, to his honour be it said, gave £3,000 to be divided into three sums of £1,000 a year to obtain for the Liverpool Workhouse trained and experienced nurses. Twelve were appointed on the recommendation of Miss Nightingale, and under them were eighty others. There was a miraculous change in the management of the workhouse infirmary. In the appearance of it it seemed that everything was being done on an im-

  165
  proved system. But what did the intelligent master of, the House report? For the first ten months—and I agree with him that that time is too short to give any sufficient proof of the working of the system—for the first ten months after the nurses came, he reported the discharges had been fewer and the deaths more frequent than under the old system. I confess that did to some extent dishearten me, and I have not at present any further return on the subject, though I have tried to obtain it. I am bound to say that Miss Nightingale was not quite satisfied with the administration of that department, although any one who visits the Liverpool Workhouse will see that it sets a pattern which is well worthy of being followed by similar establishments. I have another proposal to make with the view of securing more frequent visitation. It has been represented to me that there are no medical schools in which the treatment of chronic diseases can be studied; and I therefore propose that the Poor Law Board should have power to establish such schools, or more properly places of instruction, in connection with these hospitals, because the attendance of medical practitioners and their pupils would amount to an inspection of the most efficacious kind. Now, I think I have gone through the different classes that I propose to deal with in workhouses, and I ask, can nothing be done to prevent so many sick persons coming into the hospitals? I have had inquiries made on that subject, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will join me in admitting the debt which is owing to an officer of the Poor Law Board, Mr. Lambert, for the enormous assistance he gave them in the arrangement of statistics last year, and I have to thank him for the earnest and laborious assistance which he has afforded me in connection with the changes I propose. Though he had well earned a complete rest after having devoted himself to the preparation of the elaborate Returns that were laid before Parliament, I asked him, on his taking his holiday, if he would go to Ireland and make inquiries as to the administration of the dispensary system there. He did so, and has made a Report, which I have laid upon the table; and on that I propose to found a system which I believe calculated to diminish the amount of serious sickness among the poor. Half the pauperism of this country begins in sickness. I think it a most unsatisfactory
  166
  system that such cases as this should occur constantly:—A child goes to the district medical officer, says some one at home is ill, and describes the symptoms. Medicine is sent with the child, without the medical officer having visited the patient. It may do harm, or it may do good; but I think the system contrary to common sense. Cases have come before me where medicine is continued to be sent frequently while the medical officer has not seen or seldom seen the patient. Not long ago a case occurred in the metropolis of this kind:—A daughter came to the medical officer, described pains, and medicine was sent to the mother; she died, and it was found she was suffering from quite a different complaint to that to which the medicine was intended to cure. I know of a workhouse in the North of England—I will not mention it—where they have what they call house medicine placed in a pauper's hands, and whoever wants it applies and gets it, and the demand seems good, for though the workhouse is a small one, the inmates consume a gallon a week. The medical officer says it does them no harm; the master says it has a great effect. The absence of disastrous consequences from medicines thus sent upon mere guess seems to prove that they must be at least harmless; but more is required. Now, to remedy this loose system, I propose that dispensaries be established in different parts of the metropolis, and that in all cases the medical men should write a prescription. It may be said that this is a cumbersome system; but it is carried out in Paris and in Ireland, where it answers exceedingly well, and prevents a great deal of sickness which otherwise would have to be treated in the hospitals. Mr. Lambert went to inquire into the matter. I do not propose to read at length his report; but if I read extracts from it it will be for the advantage of the House, for I am unable to give better reasons for this enactment than he has given. Dr. Rogers, in his evidence before the Relief Committee, suggested that the authorities should find the drugs, and not the medical officers. I propose to adopt that course; the drugs are to be found. I cannot help thinking that will remove from the medical man a great temptation. We shall secure good drugs; and when I come to speak of the mode of paying for them the House will see that the plan we propose will, or at least ought to, obtain for us the best drugs possible. The advantages

  167
  of this system are stated by Mr. Lambert in better words than I myself could employ—
  "It insures for the destitute sick poor a sufficient supply of all necessary and proper medicine and medical appliances. It enables those who are not confined within doors to obtain medical advice at fixed hours, and within a convenient distance from their homes. It insures for those who are unable to go out medical attendance, and enables them to obtain their medicines promptly. It affords facilities for vaccination, as well as for medical relief generally, by establishing fixed places at which it is well known that the medical officers must attend at stated hours."
  The next, I think a most important matter, which some of my hon. Friends from Ireland will no doubt be able to confirm; it is that nothing so much tended to check the recent outbreak of cholera in Ireland as the power of expansion which there is in the dispensary system. Mr. Lambert goes on to say—
  "It provides an organization always ready, and capable of expansion if necessary, to meet any outbreak of epidemic disease with promptness; while, at the same time, it is calculated to prevent disease becoming epidemie by early treatment, and by procuring the adoption of precautionary measures in any locality which may be threatened. These benefits have recently been largely realized in Ireland in reference to cholera."
  I think it a most important point that when a person is removed from outdoor to indoor relief his prescriptions should go with him; so that the medical man in charge of the case may have the opportunity of seeing what the course of treatment has been—
  "By preserving a record of the medical treatment in every case it furnishes a test of both the skill and attention of the medical officer. It prevents that conflict between interest and duty which must so often arise in the mind of the medical officer when he himself is required to provide medicines out of his salary."
  I think the reasons I have just read are reasons of great force and weight. In attempting to give effect to them it will, of course, be necessary that the Poor Law Board should have power to deal with all contracts entered into with existing medical officers; because I am sure the House, in a proceeding of this kind, would wish to see all those who have hitherto given their services dealt with justly and honourably. To another provision which it will be necessary to make in this Bill the attention of the House was called by the Report of the Committee which sat from 1861 to 1864, and that is as to doing away, as far as practicable, with Local Acts in the metropolis. At present there are ten places under Local
  168
  Acts in the metropolis, and we propose that they should be brought just as much under the authority of the Poor Law Board as any of the rest. At the present there is a nominal audit, but the audit in some of these cases is worthless. I trust that the House, with the Report of the Committee from 1861 to 1864 before them, and with all the facts and reasoning in its favour, will carry that part of the Bill—the abolition of the Local Acts—so far as they relate to Poor Law administration in the metropolis. Now I come to a point which will be more interesting to some hon. Members sitting opposite than any other part of the Bill. I have been urged and invited by a great deputation, by pamphlets, and by letters innumerable, to state whether I am prepared to equalize poor rates throughout the metropolis. Upon that subject I will not keep the House in suspense, because I will say at once that I am not prepared to make such a proposition; but I am prepared to do a good deal, I will not say towards equalizing those rates, but towards distributing charges now levied separately upon the various localities. It is true that this metropolis is in a certain sense one altogether; but every one must see, I think, that there is no place in the world with more varied interests or more unmistakably divided into different districts than the metropolis. I find one gentleman proposing, for instance, twelve municipal establishments, and another proposing that London should be divided into all sorts of districts with distinct machinery; so that it is quite clear that London is felt to be separated into various and distinct divisions. And I cannot get over this: how, if you once equalize the rates of the metropolis, are you to provide for a central management? You must have a paid management, and you must do away with local management altogether. If not, how are you to put a proper check and control on the expenditure? I am quite sure of this, that by such a change, instead of bringing down the rates to a certain amount, you would have a very great increase in the present rate of expenditure. I could not help remarking the other day at the deputation how many gentlemen said they were a great deal less liberal than they should be if they had the means of putting their hands into the pockets of their wealthy neighbours. I quite admit that would be the result. It is clear, at

  169
  all events, that the deputation looked to a much larger expenditure. And I am not now expressing any opinion of my own as to the sufficiency of their present expenditure in some respects—as to outdoor relief, for instance. But I believe that a great paid system for 3,000,000 people would utterly fail, though perhaps it would become a great department, and finally overtop the Department over which I have the honour to preside. If, on the other hand, the administration were intrusted to the Poor Law Board, it would occasion conflicts and difficulties greater than any that have hitherto arisen. Another difficulty I in the way of equalizing the rates, though that certainly might be overcome, lies in the question of uniformity of assessment. At this moment the rateable value of the metropolis is put at £15,000,000. How much of that is ascertained by the Union Assessment Committees? Why, as to between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 of that amount, we have no means of ascertaining whether the value is properly estimated or not. It is ascertained without Union Assessment Committees, and is assessed in parishes as they please; and it may be, for aught I know, that the assessments may be so managed as to cause much of the evil which is complained of. The Poor Law Committee did not make any recommendations on this subject. They called attention to it, and say there are peculiar circumstances in the metropolis. There are peculiar circumstances in the metropolis, and I think they are such as to justify me in proceeding to the length I propose to do in distributing the charges. The Union Chargeability Act got rid of a great number of difficulties, particularly in the City of London, where, I think, one parish was rated at 2d. in the pound, and another rated as high as 9s. These inequalities have been remedied, and the City of London Union is now equally assessed, and pays, no doubt, a very moderate sum, having regard to its wealth, as compared with the surrounding districts. The charges of the houseless poor have all been thrown on the common fund of the metropolis. I do not think the time has yet come for forming a definite opinion on that question. I think the time will come when it will be necessary to inquire into the working of that Act. It has answered to a great extent in this way. It has provided that no person need be houseless in this metropolis. It has trebled the number of persons who used to apply
  170
  for admission to the casual wards of workhouses; but I find that, although the estimate, in point of numbers, has been largely exceeded, the actual cost of the wards and relief given is not beyond the one-eighth of a penny regarded at the time as sufficient for the purpose. This charge is not a very large one, yet it has been instrumental in introducing a new principle into the metropolis. I told the House I had been petitioned repeatedly by persons at the East End of the metropolis to do something to bring them into a better condition. Curiously enough, I received only yesterday from one of the parishes that is rated highest—Whitechapel—a memorial on the subject; and, if the framers of that memorial had looked into the Bill which I propose to submit, they could not have put forward more accurately the points which they desired that I should take up, both as to the direction and extent of the changes that are recommended. I will not read that memorial at length; but I may state its substance. The memorialists
  "Consider that the following provisions leave each union still to be responsible and chargeable with precisely those expenses and their administration where only indiscrete and corrupt expenditure could occur, and so supply a guarantee to all parties against the increase of pauperism by ignorant, partial, and profuse bestowal of the public funds."
  They propose that we should put certified and district schools upon the common fund; and that lunatics, imbeciles, the salaries and wages of permanent officials, fees for vaccination, small-pox and fever hospitals, and so forth, should be charged to the common fund. That is exactly what I propose to do. I propose, in the first instance, to charge to the common fund the lunatics and imbeciles. I cannot consider that an unreasonable step. When the settlement of these persons cannot be ascertained, they are charged to the county in county asylums, and counties find the buildings, and it cannot be contended that lunatics belong more to one part of the metropolis than they do to another, though all have an equal interest in seeing their necessities adequately and comfortably relieved. Besides, it is one of those items which cannot be jobbed; you cannot make lunatics for the purpose. It is not as in the case of ordinary sick persons, who in hospital would be charged to one fund, and out of hospital to another. Again, there are many reasons why the salaries of the medical officers, the officers

  171
  of dispensaries, and the charge for medicines should be a charge on the common fund. At this moment half the medical officers' salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This was done by Sir Robert Peel, and in practice it has been attended with no evil consequences. And in dealing with the salaries of these gentlemen, and placing them upon the common fund, a check remains with the Poor Law Board, without whose consent no salary can be given. [Sir GEORGE GREY: The common fund of the whole metropolis?] The common fund of the whole metropolis. In speaking of it, I have called it shortly "the common fund." Then, as regards the salaries. I do not mean the salaries of assistant overseers and collectors, but the salaries of all officers actually engaged in the administration of poor relief ought, I think, to be placed on the common fund. In many cases, also, I think when this is done improvements may be introduced. Poor persons have to travel frequently to great distances to obtain outdoor relief, and it is very desirable that there should be more relieving officers, or more points at which they can obtain assistance. At present I believe the very applications for assistance often bring evils in their train; for by crowding together in large numbers at a particular point a long detention is caused, the poor have their sickness or infirmity much increased by being kept in the snow or the rain for an unreasonable time. Registration and vaccination expenses I would put on the common fund. These are small charges, but it is most desirable that the system of which they form part should be made as effective as possible, with a view of getting rid of that horrible and disastrous complaint, the small-pox. For the same reason I would establish the small-pox and fever hospitals, and pay the expenses out of the common fund. Small-pox and fever are not things the relief of which can be traded in. Nobody will go into a small pox or fever hospital who has not one of those diseases. Patients such as these endanger the health of the whole population if they are not properly cared for, and if means be not taken to prevent the infection from being spread. I now come to the children's schools. Great efforts are at present being made on behalf of education, some calling for compulsory education, and some for other systems. The district schools, and certified schools, and schools under the Inspectors of the Poor Law
  172
  Board, are working admirably as separate schools. I propose by this Bill that we should have separate schools, and that the maintenance of the children shall be paid out of the common fund of the metropolis, s The building will be provided by the district. I have now to consider what all' these charges will amount to. I will not go into the details now, because I shall lay on the table papers that will give the fullest information on the subject. I propose to lay the Bill at once on the table; and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to judge better of details from reading the clauses than they would be from any description which I might give them. It is right, however, that I should answer some of the questions that will probably be put to me. The City of London is the richest union in the metropolis. What would be the effect on the City of London Union of these additional charges on the common fund. They would increase the rate by 3¾d. in the pound. I will take an extreme case on the opposite side—St. George's, Southwark. They would relieve that union by reducing the rate from about 3s. to about 2s. in the pound. Adding the whole of the additional or new charges which I think will arise from this measure if you adopt it, a sum of about £60,000 per annum will have to be raised. Now, 1d. rate raises £61,000; sol think that at that sum the metropolis may purchase a very great improvement at a reasonably cheap rate. Those improvements, if the House should think them improvements, may be effected at so cheap a rate as 1d. in the pound; and, although this rate will fall on the impoverished as well as on the richer unions, it is to be borne in mind that the former will be relieved by the allocation of expenses with which they are now charged on the common fund. In order that the money to be raised should be devoted to a common fund it will be necessary, as in the case of the police rate, to appoint a receiver under the Poor Law Board. And instead of going to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which should have nothing to do with the management of the poor, I propose to relieve them of their present duty of obtaining the funds for the houseless poor, and to enact that the Poor Law Board shall issue warrants for the different rates; that the receiver who shall give proper security, shall pay the money into the Bank of England, and that he 8hall distribute the funds according to the just proportions

  173
  due to the several unions and districts. I suppose it will be asked, further, what will be the cost of the buildings? I have already said that, having regard to the statement of the Lunacy Commissioners, the lunatics for whom the Bill proposes to provide cannot be looked on as the ordinary class of lunatics who have some chance of being cured. Those who have a chance of cure will go to the ordinary asylums; and where the cases are chronic some patients might be transferred thence to the new buildings, instead of being kept where they would only be in the way of inmates more needing special care. If I give £50 a head as the cost of the asylums, there being 2,000 lunatics, the cost would be £100,000. Of course, I speak with great reserve on this subject. I know that the price of building has risen very much; but, looking at all the circumstances, I believe we may easily provide such buildings as we require for that sum. In addition to this, I think we should have to provide for at least 2,000 more sick; and, putting down the cost of the building necessary for their accommodation at £60 a head, we have £120,000 more. Then there would be the additional school building, which would cost from £50,000 to £70,000, and the fever and small-pox hospitals, which would take from £50,000 to £70,000 more. It would thus appear that the entire buildings would cost about £360,000, or say, in round numbers, £400,000. When it is borne in mind that many unions of the metropolis would be obliged to build under present circumstances, and that some of them are at this moment building, it will be seen that a very considerable expenditure for new buildings will take place, even should this Bill not be passed. For instance, the site on which St. Martin's Workhouse now stands has been bought by the Government, and the guardians will be able to build on a better scale with the money which they will receive for the present house. I think, therefore, that I am safe in saying £400,000 would be the extreme limit. It would be paid off in yearly sums. The payment for the first year would be £40,000; but the annual payments would become less after that, and for such a sum two-thirds of 1d.in the pound over the metropolis would be the required rating. There is one other provision in the Bill to which I wish to allude before concluding. It is one conferring
  174
  on the Poor Law Board a power similar to one vested in the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, and which, though I believe never exercised, has been found effective in producing the desired results. Though I intend to submit to the House another measure applying to England generally, in respect of certain minor points, we have thought it right at once to ask Parliament to give power to the Poor Law Board to appoint proper officers in the event of the guardians or managers declining to do so. Though I believe it never will be necessary to exercise this provision, I think it will be advisable to give some less expensive and more speedy remedy than that of a mandamus in case of neglect to appoint nurses or other officers. Knowing this power to be vested in the Poor Law Board, I think those intrusted with the management of unions will always so act as that it will be unnecessary ever to exercise it. I have now only to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me. I can assure the House that I have not dealt with this question without having given the subject much thought and consideration. I have endeavoured as far as possible to come to a just and satisfactory conclusion, feeling as I did very deeply the responsibility cast upon me lest, while endeavouring to mitigate existing evils, I might take any step which should lead to the worst of all evils—an increase of pauperism in the country. I have limited, as far as seemed to me possible to do so, the burdens to be thrown on the poorer parishes. I feel very much for those parishes, and I cannot help throwing out a suggestion as to what might probably be done at a future time in the way of exceptional relief without any injury to our Poor Law system might not power be given to the Poor Law Board in the event of any sudden and extraordinary calamity—such as an outbreak of cholera—to raise a general rate, not exceeding 1d.in the pound, over all the parishes of London? In this way a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 might be at once placed at the disposal of the authorities for the relief of the afflicted. I only throw that out as a suggestion. It appears to me that it would afford us a means of meeting some of the evils with which we have had to contend, without leading to that still greater evil to which I have just referred. I feel satisfied that this Bill will be received by hon. Members on the Opposition side in a

  175
  spirit of forbearance and impartiality. This is a matter to which no party feeling can attach itself. We have only one object in view, which is the benefit of this metropolis—to do a service both to the ratepayers and to the suffering poor, whether in workhouse or receiving outdoor relief. I commend the measure to the kind consideration of the House, assuring them that we are not so wedded to its every detail as not to give the utmost attention to any Amendment which may be proposed; but I would earnestly beg of hon. Members who wish for larger changes to take care lest in grasping at a shadow they should lose the substance which we now offer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. AYRTONexpressed the satisfaction he felt at finding that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, at so early a period of his political career, had applied himself to a consideration of this important question, which, he was sorry to say, had been too long left in its present state. He could not forget that it was now ten years since he had brought the subject under the notice of the House; and in vain had he been looking for some action on the part of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. Even if it was true that the descriptions of what took place in some of the workhouses of our metropolis were somewhat exaggerated, he was glad that by the publication of those accounts the press had directed public attention to the administration of the Poor Law. If writers of equal ability to those who had described the workhouses attended at the bedsides of the poor who died in private houses, they would find material for reports as painful as those they had made on the condition of the unfortunate poor people who had had to seek indoor relief. He believed that the true source of all the evils connected with the administration of the relief to the poor in the metropolis, had been the injustice attendant on the unequal distribution of {he charges in the different parishes. As long as that injustice prevailed, it would be impossible to deal with the consequences which resulted from it. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that principle, and had proposed to extend the charge for those improvements through the entire community by means of what he termed a common fund. He was not
  176
  going at present to complain of the measure of justice which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accord; for last year he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that perhaps the best way of meeting the question of the equalization of the poor rates, would be not to attempt at once to subvert the whole administration of the Poor Law of the metropolis by one measure, but to proceed upon the principle of bringing from time to time other and different classes of the poor on a common fund as might be found convenient and practicable. The right hon. Gentleman had, undoubtedly, taken several classes with whom it would be comparatively easy to deal, and he appeared to have stopped at the very point where the real difficulties of the case commenced. Now, he did not complain of that; because if this tentative measure were found to answer, the system might be extended, and, assisted by the light of experience, they might extend the uniform charge to classes remaining excluded. There was only one point to which he wished to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained very clearly what was to be the mode of administering the common fund. It was suggested that there were to be district Boards, and if so we should be going back to a plan which had been proposed twice before, and which on each occasion turned out a failure. For his part, he thought it a pity that the attempt should be made for the third time. There would be no merit in dividing London into new districts; but what was wanted was one entire administration which would deal with the whole subject, superintend the whole of the distribution of relief, in those cases which were embraced in the present Bill. Just in proportion as it was attempted to re-combine and re-group parishes and unions, would unnecessary expense be entailed, and the measure be rendered inefficient. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that, if one Board only were established, it would eclipse and overshadow his own; but that was a rather narrow view to take of the question, and he might depend upon it that, as long as he presided with ability over his own Board, it would not be overshadowed by any other. At all events, he did not think the question ought to be embarrassed by any consideration of that kind. The question was, whether it were desirable to have one Board to superintend the infirmaries, dispensaries, and lunatic asylums, or whe-

  177
  ther there should be a multiplicity of Boards. The magistrates of the county were quite equal to deal with the lunatic asylums of Middlesex, and he saw no reason why a Central Board should not deal with the infirmaries, dispensaries, and lunatic asylums in the metropolis. He did not propose to discuss the practical bearings of the measure on the present occasion; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not pledge himself too much to that part of his Bill. In conclusion, he expressed his opinion that we should do well to deal with this question by degrees; for, if the system now proposed were found to answer, it might be extended at any future time. He was desirous before he sat down to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the great attention which he had given to the subject, and to express the pleasure with which he had listened to his able speech.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDwished, in the first place, to tender his most grateful thanks to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for the spirit in which he had approached this question; and, in the second, to assure him that the sole reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had not been present that evening was that severe indisposition compelled him to remain at home. With regard to the various details of the scheme, he could only say that every portion of it would receive the most impartial consideration on his part. He only wished now to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having so earnestly addressed himself to this important subject, and to state why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had not been present to hear his speech.
  MR. BRADYalso thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the industry and ability he had displayed since he had presided over the Poor Law Board, and had brought to bear upon this important question. It was quite clear that he had paid great attention to it, and had considered it in a spirit of perfect impartiality. The alterations now proposed were highly important in a medical point of view, and would remedy many of the evils the pressure of which was now most severely felt. After paying a high compliment to the editor of The Lancet for the considerable expense to which he had put himself for the purpose of collecting accurate and ample information on this subject, the hon. Member
  178
  proceeded to say that he hoped medical officers would for the future be freed from the influences which had hitherto been brought to bear by the guardians most injuriously upon the proper performance of their duties. They were at the disposal of the guardians, who might dismiss them or continue them in their offices as they thought fit; and it was well known that in many instances medical officers had been turned out or harassed out of their office because they were disposed to order for the patients more nourishment than the guardians approved of. As long as this was allowed the administration of the medical department of the Poor Law must continue to be unsatisfactory. The medical officers ought also to be better paid. If this were done the complaints which had been heard of the inefficient performance of their duties would not have to be repeated; but it was unreasonable to suppose that, while they were miserably underpaid, they would be found ready to devote their time and to endanger their lives cheerfully in attendance upon the poor. It was a piece of injustice to the poor so long as their medical men continued to be thus underpaid.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that as he had always taken the deepest interest in this subject, he was unwilling to let the opportunity pass without tendering to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) his thanks for the introduction of the Bill, and likewise for the pains which he had taken in investigating the question, and the great ability he had displayed in introducing his Bill. When he waited upon the right hon. Gentleman with the deputation which had been referred to by him that evening, he saw that the sympathies and views of the right hon. Gentleman were sound, and that whatever was done would be done in the right direction. The right hon. Gentleman had only stopped short of carrying out the complete proposal of the deputation—namely, the equalization of the poor rates in the metropolis, because he thought certain difficulties would arise from there being no sufficient check upon a too lavish expenditure in the relief of the poor. He believed, however, that as soon as the present plan was adopted, it would be found that the principle of the Bill might be safely extended to the equalization of the whole poor rate throughout the metropolis. The Report of the Poor Belief Committee did not, indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman had said,

  179
  contain, a direct recommendation in favour of the equalization of the poor rates of the metropolis; but it stated that the circumstances of the metropolis were so peculiar that in any legislation to extend the area of charge or management it would be necessary to have regard to those circumstances. With respect to some of those peculiarities which pressed so heavily on the poorer parishes, there was no doubt that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would provide a remedy, though he did not pledge himself to all the details of the Bill, which would be matter for great consideration when they were before the House. But in the principle of the Bill he heartily agreed; and, with other hon. Gentlemen, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the great labour he had bestowed on the subject, and the distinguished ability with which he had treated it, and for the proposals contained in the Bill, which would be appreciated and approved of by the whole metropolis.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that all must admire the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached a difficult subject, the clear and lucid statement he had made, and the tone and temper in which he had brought the matter forward.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and other classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the distribution over the Metropolis of portions of the charge for Poor Relief; and for other purposes relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. EARLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]

TRADES UNIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WALPOLE,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for facilitating in certain cases the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to make inquiry respecting trades unions, and other associations of employers of workmen, said: The Bill, Sir, I now ask leave to introduce is of a somewhat unusual character, and the circumstances which have given rise to it are also peculiar. I will briefly refer to them. Many hon. Gentlemen will recollect that in the autumn of last year a very violent outrage was committed in Sheffield, an attempt having been made to blow up the house of a Mr. Ferneyhough, with its occupants. Large rewards were offered for the detec-
  180
  tion of the perpetrators of this atrocious deed. The Government, in answer to appeals made to it, also offered a reward, and a promise of pardon to any one concerned, except the actual perpetrator, who would give information on the subject. All these offers and promises failed, and the perpetrator of the deed is still unknown. In consequence of the failure of these efforts to discover the guilty parties, application was made to the Government, on the part of those most intimately connected with the trade of Sheffield, that extraordinary measures should be taken for the detection not merely of this offence, but of similar crimes before committed. A deputation attended at the Home Office, headed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and he stated, on the part of the inhabitants of Sheffield, how earnestly they desired that the Government should take some steps for the discovery of this deed. It was pointed out by the deputation that other and repeated offences had been committed of a similar character, some of less, some of equal atrocity; and there was placed in my hand a list of 200 cases within the last twenty years, in which it was alleged that workmen had been assailed. First of all they had been warned by threatening letters, then they had their tools injured and their leather bands destroyed, and finally incendiarism and gunpowder had been introduced when the other warnings had been found to be insufficient. Under these circumstances, it was pressed upon the Government that even if only to prevent suspicion resting upon the wrong persons, it would be necessary to confer extraordinary powers, land that the Government should apply for them to the Legislature. This deputation was followed by another, headed also by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, from what are commonly known as trades unions, which pressed upon the Government with equal earnestness the importance of taking extraordinary measures for discovering the real perpetrators of these outrages. I think I cannot do better than read to the House the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, addressed to myself on the part of those who then attended with him. Speaking of the trades unions, he said—
  "They believe that a full inquiry will prove that trades unions have been and are of great benefit to the working classes and through them to the, country at large; that they are wholly innocent of any such foul proceedings as are laid to their charge; that their conduct has been wise and just

  181
  to their employers as well as themselves; and that the more searching is the inquiry the more patent and obvious will appear the wisdom of those who have directed the proceedings of these unions, and the immense advantage to trade and the country at large from their existence. Such being their firm conviction, they earnestly pray you to accede to their request, and that you will move the House of Commons to pass a law creating a Commission with ample powers to make all requisite inquiries into this most momentous subject, and that you will support such Motion with all the powers of this Government."
  I felt it to be my duty to communicate to my Colleagues the appeal thus made to me, and to submit to them that an application of this kind, coming both from the employers and the employed, rendered it necessary to consider first whether Parliament should not be applied to for extraordinary powers with reference to these outrages; and, in the second place, if such an application were made, whether the opportunity ought not to be taken of inquiring fully and completely into the working of trades unions and similar associations. The Government considered that such an appeal could not be resisted; and the only question, therefore, in their minds was whether the inquiry should be limited, in the first instance, to the occurrences at Sheffield, or should embrace the whole subject to which I have referred. As regards Sheffield, I think it will be admitted on all sides that, in the face of the double appeal made to us, we could not but accede to the desired investigation. That town is, in some respects, peculiarly circumstanced with regard to trades unions. I am afraid I must say, in passing, that it has obtained an unenviable notoriety for outrages of this description. But there are also circumstances peculiar to it which make it the most advantageous place in which an inquiry such as that now proposed could take place. In Sheffield there are a large number of trades unions; many of these are in association with others, and there are some trades without unions at all. There is also this further peculiarity, that the difference between the workman or artisan and the employer or capitalist is less broad and distinct, at least, in the cutlery trade than it is in most of the other manufacturing districts of the country. The line between the employers and the employed in the great majority of the large manufacturing towns is plain and obvious. The capitalists provide everything except the labour. But in the cutlery trade the artisan not merely furnishes his labour, but he rents what are called the wheels, and in
  182
  that respect he is master of his own time and of his own resources. These wheels, connected by bands with the water wheel, are thus rented by the artisan, the result being that in this double capacity—partly as owner of the wheel and partly as workman—he is not merely in those capacities master of his own time, but he is also capable of sustaining severe injuries at the hands of any discontented workmen who may think they have reason to find fault with him. A common way of showing resentment against a fellow-workman is to deprive him of the tools of his trade, steal his wheel-bands, or disable his machinery in other respects. At last, if these proceedings prove ineffectual, recourse is had to the more flagrant outrages to which I have already referred. In this state of affairs it is impossible for Parliament to shut its eyes to the importance of having a thorough investigation set on foot, especially in the face of the applications which have been made by all parties for inquiry. The Government have therefore arrived at the conclusion, in regard to Sheffield, that it is for the benefit of all concerned that special investigation should take place; and I have now to ask leave to bring in the Bill of which I have given notice. But this further point was brought specifically under my notice by two deputations, headed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—namely, if you have an inquiry at all, has not the time come when the fullest inquiry should be made into these trades unions and other associations? Is it not desirable that the inquiry should be in the largest and most comprehensive form, so that the evil or good of these unions may equally be brought out, and the law complained of on the one side or the other so improved, as to contribute to the mutual benefit both of the employers and the employed? That was the grave and difficult question submitted to the Government in the course of the autumn; and it appeared to the Government that there were two reasons why such an inquiry would be most advantageous. The first is the uncertain, and I may say, after looking very fully into the question, unsatisfactory state of the law. The second is that the subject is but ill understood by those who are most interested in it. The fuller the inquiry, the better will the subject be understood by the country. The facts of the case being brought to the knowledge of an impartial tribunal, it will then report to the Queen

  183
  and to Parliament the result of their inquiries before legislation is attempted. These are the reasons which appear to me to be absolutely irresistible in the present state of affairs in favour of such an inquiry. Upon both I may take the liberty of adding a few words. The law of this country, independent of the common law—the doctrine of conspiracy—is entirely based upon the Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of George IV. Before that Act was passed, from the earliest period, the law relating to combination was in every respect adverse to the workman. The earliest statute relating to combination was passed in the reign of Edward III. From that time to the reign of George III. a series of statutes were passed prohibiting combinations, either for the purpose of raising wages, or for the purpose of limiting the hours of work, or for the purpose of attempting to control any manufacture, or for imposing restraints upon masters, either with regard to the hire of assistance or the employment of labourers. The object of some of these statutes nobody probably would find fault with. But the object of others was a direct interference with the freedom of labour. It was under these circumstances that in the year 1824 Mr. Hume obtained the appointment of a Committee of this House, which went fully into the whole subject, and that Committee reported that the law respecting these combinations had not prevented them—that in spite of the law combinations existed—that they existed in the worst form in which combinations could exist—namely, as secret societies with secret oaths. The Committee drew from these facts the natural conclusion that such a state of the law could not properly be maintained. The Act of 6 Geo. IV., framed on the Report, enabled workmen, if they could, to obtain from their employers higher wages, or more limited hours of work; but, at the same time, the Committee condemned in toto any attempt to continue such combinations, if they were to exercise by violence or threat any restraint upon the freedom of others in the prosecution of their work or in the employment of labour. This is clearly shown by the Resolutions of the Committee, the preamble of the statute, and the speech of Mr. Wallace, the President of the Board of Trade, who introduced the Bill. The seventh Resolution come to by Mr. Hume's Committee runs as follows:—
  "That it is the opinion of this Committee that
  184
  masters and workmen should be freed from such restrictions as regard the rate of wages and the hours of working, and be left at perfect liberty to make such agreements as they may mutually think proper."
  And the eleventh Resolution asserts—
  "That it is absolutely necessary, when repealing the combination laws, to enact such a law as may efficiently and by summary process punish either workmen or masters who by threats, intimidation, or acts of violence should interfere with that perfect freedom which ought to be allowed to each party of employing his labour and capital in the manner he may deem most advantageous."
  The preamble of the statute states that—
  "It is expedient to make further provision as well for the security and personal freedom of individual workmen in the disposal of their skill and labour as for the security of the property and persons of masters and employers."
  Mr. Wallace's remarks are in the same spirit as the Resolutions and preamble which I have quoted, and I look upon his speech as the key to the measure which was passed. Mr. "Wallace said—
  "He was no friend to the principle of the laws which had been repealed. He did not wish to see them re-enacted, but he wished that the common law as it had stood before should be again brought into force.…By that law sufficient powers were given to the workmen for the preservation of their own interests. They were permitted to meet for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages; but if they went beyond this, and attempted to mix up any intimidation of others in their schemes, it was going too far. The object of the Bill was to keep up this distinction, and everything beside was left to the operation of the common law.…The principle of the Bill now before the House was to make all associations illegal, excepting those for the purpose of settling such amount of wages as would be a fair remuneration to the workman."—[2 Hansard, xiii. 1404.]
  Mr. Wallace should have added—and no doubt it was his intention to add—that associations would also be permitted for the purpose of settling such amount of wages, and also regulating such hours of labour, as would be a fair remuneration for the workman. That was the object of the Bill. The principle was simply this—to draw a distinction between the use and the abuse of that liberty which capital and labour had an equal right to claim, and that was, I have no doubt, the principle which was to be substituted for the law which existed before. The desire of Parliament was to give liberty to labourers to act in combination when their object was legitimate and reasonable, and to restrain them from combining to abuse the liberty accorded to them. It was intended, therefore, to leave untouched the common law, and nothing was done with

  185
  reference to that in the Act of Parliament. The consequence has been that in leaving untouched that part of the subject questions soon arose which complicated the matter very much—namely, how far the common-law doctrine of conspiracy was applicable to trades unions. There are three points which show how unsatisfactory is the state of the law at the present moment. First, with reference to the common-law doctrine of conspiracy, a dictum was laid down by one of the Judges—that although a person, a single individual, might do an act which would not subject him to an indictment, yet if two or more individuals did the same act they might subject themselves to au indictment for conspiracy. And the illustration given by the learned Judge was taken from the wages question—namely, that a single workman was perfectly at liberty to insist that he would not work unless he had a certain amount of wages; yet if two or three workmen combined for that purpose, in the eye of the law it amounted to a conspiracy. No doubt a more liberal and a more just interpretation has since been adopted; but still the law is not clearly defined, for according to that interpretation, although it is truly said that every conspiracy implies a combination, every combination does not necessarily imply a conspiracy; and I believe the law at this moment may be taken to be that a combination to constitute a conspiracy must be the combination of persons to do an unlawful act, or to do an act which may be lawful by unlawful means. But, then, the House will see that that very definition of combination and conspiracy leaves one point entirely uncertain, and it is owing to that uncertainty that considerable difficulty has arisen in several recent cases, and especially in the last case. The uncertainty is as to what is and what is not unlawful. As applicable to this question, there are two cases of great importance—the one that of "Hilton v. Eckersley," and the other that of "Hornby v. Close." In the former case several employers bound themselves in a bond, under a penalty of £500, not to employ workmen except upon certain terms and conditions. One of those who had subscribed acted in opposition to the agreement, and an action was brought against him to recover the penalty to which he had rendered himself liable. The Court decided that, although there was nothing in the bond or the subscription to render it so illegal as to subject
  186
  the subscriber to criminal proceedings, yet, inasmuch as the nature of the bond implied a restraint on trade and manufacture, it was illegal in another sense—that is, it could not be enforced in a civil court. The case of "Hornby v. Close" was just the reverse of this. In that case a number of working men, forming themselves into a society, had placed their money in the hands of a treasurer, and brought an action to recover the money. The claim was resisted on the ground that, though some of the rules of the society were such as were usually adopted by friendly societies, yet others were such as regulated the action of trades unions, and were calculated to act as a restraint upon trade. The judgment of the Lord Chief Justice has put before us very plainly this question as to the legality of the Act, and of its illegality at the same time as regards any action in the civil courts—
  "He quite agreed with Mr. Mellish that if the main object of the society was that of benevolence, though the rules might have gone a little further or a little less, that it was one coming within the 9th section of the Act; but here the very purpose and existence of the society was not merely that of carrying out those objects for which benevolent societies, so-called, were established; but also for the purpose of carrying out a trades union, under a very generally understood combination by which men bound themselves not to work except under certain conditions, and to support themselves when out of employment in conformity with the interests and wishes of the body at large. He was far from saying that a trades union so constituted, and for such a purpose, would bring the members within the criminal law. On the same principle that a combination of masters for a certain purpose was so far illegal in respect of civil rights that it could not be enforced, so he thought that a civil action brought on these rules would be held to be illegal. He thought, for two reasons, that this society could not be brought within the provisions of the Friendly Societies' Act—first, because the purposes for which trades unions were organized were not analogous to those of benefit societies; and secondly, because this arrangement, though not criminal, yet, being in restraint of trade, they were by the law of the land illegal."
  Now that state of the law is certainly not satisfactory. It ought to be more clearly defined what are the rules which make it illegal for any combination of persons to take place; because unless it is, the right which they have of enforcing from those who have their money any civil right is very questionable. It ought also to be so defined, that the members of these societies may not under cover of a benevolent purpose attempt to do something that is contrary to law or in restraint of trade. The

  187
  question then arises whether the rules of these societies cannot be so regulated by law as to draw the line between that which is legal and that which is illegal; so that in the one case persons may know that if legal their rights will be secured, and that if illegal they ought not to attempt to enter into such societies. In saying this I do not wish to give au opinion as to what should ultimately be the law of the land, because that must depend upon the result of the inquiry about to be instituted. On the one hand, when you find these societies extending, and increasing in magnitude, and consider that they were originally established to give themselves perfect freedom with regard to their own labour, it is impossible to ignore their existence or to deny their claims. On the other hand, if they attempt to obtain through the instrumentality of these combinations something which the law does not allow, and cannot allow, then the line ought so to be drawn that they ought not to be permitted to claim a right which is not given to them. But it appears to me that, do what you will—even if you can distinguish, which I believe you may, between what will give these societies a legal existence and that which ought to be restrained if beyond the law—yet one of the greatest evils of all—that of locks-out on the one hand and strikes on the other—will not be lessened until you can find something by which the differences between the employers of labour and the employed can be satisfactorily settled. I consider that one of the most important, if not the most important, objects of inquiry will be, whether arbitration or conciliation courts, as they are called, or some other tribunal may not be established, in which both parties would have equal confidence, for the purpose of adjusting their differences before they arrive at that point which is fatal, not only to themselves, but to the best interests of the country. It will be necessary therefore that the Commission, if appointed, shall have some person of great judicial eminence to direct the inquiry, so as to leave the law no longer in its present uncertain and unsatisfactory state, and to suggest for the mutual satisfaction of both employer and employed some tribunal by means of which their differences maybe adjusted. I believe that no legislation whatever can be more important than that which would accomplish this great and most desirable object. I said before, that it was not merely on the
  188
  ground of the uncertainty, and therefore, to some extent, the unsatisfactory state of the law, that I thought the time had come when this inquiry should be made. I said also that the subject was imperfectly understood, and, from all I can hear, both on the part of the masters and of the men, they do not seem to have been brought into such a position that the views of each could be thoroughly understood by the other. Although both have given much consideration to the subject from their own point of view, the different opinions entertained respecting it have never hitherto been brought before one tribunal where they can be compared and sifted, and where each party may understand the views of the other. If this inquiry attains that object, we shall then have before us, for the purpose of legislation, a full and complete exposition of the views and opinions on both sides, in order that we may then settle the law upon a satisfactory basis. The people of Sheffield, workmen as well as masters, having solicited inquiry in order to detect the atrocious crime lately committed there, I venture to think that the opportunity may well be taken, and ought to be taken, to consider the whole subject, in order that Parliament may afterwards apply the best remedy which can be devised. It was said on the first night of the Session by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), alluding to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech upon this subject, that he hoped those who recommended the Commission did not mean to interfere with the perfect freedom either of capital or of labour, so long as nothing was done, by means of these unions and associations, to injure the freedom of trade. I hope that the few words I have spoken to-night will show that no such intention is entertained by the Government. What they desire through the Commission, and the powers which they will ask Parliament to confer on the Commission, is, to draw the line which ought to be drawn between perfect freedom of labour as well as capital, and those illegal acts and acts of violence, threat, and intimidation, which are as detrimental to workmen as they are to masters and to the country at large. If I wanted one proof to show that this is the sole desire of the Government, I believe I should have nothing further to do than to read the words of the Commission. Her Majesty has directed the Commission to inquire and report on the organization

  189
  and rules of trades unions and other associations, whether of workmen or employers, and to inquire into and report on the effect produced by such trades unions and associations upon workmen and employers respectively, and on the relations between workmen and employers, and on the trade and industry of the country, regard being had to the investigation of any recent acts of violence alleged to be promoted, encouraged, or connived at by such associations in Sheffield, with power to suggest any improvements in the law with respect to the matters aforesaid, or with respect to the relations between workmen and employers. The Commission will thus have to consider these great subjects—namely, the effect of these unions upon workmen and employers, and their relations, and the effect they now have or are likely to have upon the general trade of the country, with full power to report upon the whole matter for the mutual benefit of employers and employed. One word with regard to the Bill proposed. The Bill recites the Commission and the object of it, and then asks for power to inquire into the acts which have been perpetrated at Sheffield. It is confined to the investigation of the acts at Sheffield almost exclusively; because a roving inquiry of that kind is not an inquiry which Parliament would be likely to grant, nor would it in all probability lead to any practical result. There is, however, this power reserved, that in case application should be made to the Commissioners, and they should think it reasonable to extend the inquiry from Sheffield, then, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, a further investigation may be made. Powers are given by the Bill to compel the attendance of witnesses; and there is a power of examining witnesses on oath, and a further power of indemnifying them from the penalties which might otherwise attach to illegal acts which they had committed, on condition that they make a full and complete confession. These are the powers given by the Bill, and by these I hope that those acts which are done with so much secrecy, and which are attended by so much difficulty of discovery, may be put an end to, that the innocent may not be confounded with the guilty while the guilty may not be punished—that is not the object of the Bill—but be exposed, and a repetition of such acts be prevented. With regard to the Commission itself, it is proposed to
  190
  make it as little of a partisan character as possible, and to attain that object, the names of those to sit upon it have been selected, one from the upper House of Parliament, four from this House, and four or five others from gentlemen outside the walls of Parliament who take a great interest in the subject, but who are not intimately connected with either the masters or the workmen. The President of the Commission is the late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir William Erle, one I need not say, whose probity of character, judicial impartiality, and great ability, eminently fit him for the post. His life for a long series of years has been devoted to the benefit of his country, and he has secured for himself the universal esteem and respect of all parties. Lord Lichfield will be appointed from the other House. There is one whom I am sure the workmen, and the country generally, would have been glad to see appointed on this Commission—I refer to the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill); but he has declined to sit, on the ground that his duties in this House occupy too much of his time. I still hope that he may be induced to re-consider his decision. Then there is the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who has taken a deep interest in the subject; the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. T. Hughes), Lord Elcho, and Sir Daniel Gooch. Prom outside the House the names of the following gentlemen have been added: Sir Edmund Head, Sir James Booth, and Mr. Herman Merivale. That makes nine members; but I ought to inform the House that I had a communication from a body of working men, urging that some working men should be put upon the Commission—or, if that course were not followed, that one or two persons, in whom the working men had entire confidence, might be appointed. My answer to them was, that I had endeavoured to avoid having a Commission with anything like a partisan spirit, and that if working men were added to it, masters must be added also. I, however, suggested that if, it were satisfactory to them, they might recommend to me the name of some gentleman whom they would like to see upon the Commission, and the masters might do the same. In that way the names of Mr. William Matthews and Mr. F. Harrison were added to the number. I thank the House for the attention they have paid to me. I trust that good results will arise from the labours of the Com-

  191
  mission. I hope its inquiries will tend to the mutual benefit of the employer and employed. Seeing that both masters and men agree in desiring an inquiry, and feeling perfect confidence that the inquiry will be properly conducted, I hope it will lead to results that will prove of permanent good to the country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, no one could doubt the importance of the subject; but with regard to the Bill itself, he did not quite understand whether the compulsory powers to be granted were to be limited to Sheffield or to extend over the whole of the country, or whether the powers of the special inquiry at Sheffield would compel witnesses to give evidence which might tend to criminate themselves, and subject them to severe penalties. He would reserve any opinion upon the Bill, however, for the present. With regard to the construction of the Commission, he would only say that he did not think that a better President could have been selected than the eminent Judge—Sir William Erie—who had presided so long over the Court of Common Pleas. He felt sure that the Commission would be conducted in the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) desired. Of the other Members he would refrain from expressing any opinion. The composition of the Commission was a most important question; because, unless constituted in such a way as to give confidence to those whose interests were concerned, it would be found to produce very little benefit.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he felt the immense gravity of the inquiry on which they were about to embark, and was delighted to hear that the composition of the Commission had been to some extent enlarged, so as to introduce one member at least who would be able conscientiously to advocate and to explain the position held by the trades unions as militant bodies. There was one point which it was desirable to impress upon Her Majesty's Government. This inquiry must extend over a considerable time; and mean while, a recent decision had placed the trades unions outside the pale of the law. From the year 1824, when the combination laws were repealed, up to 1854, the position of those societies was simply outside the law. Their objects were not illegal; but, at the same time, they had no corporate powers of suing or being sued, and
  192
  were not in any shape within the protection of the civil law. In 1853 and 1854 Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was introducing his amendment of the Friendly Societies' Acts, and he (Mr. T. Hughes) rendered the trades unions such help as he could to bring them into a recognised position in the eye of the law. They sent deputations to Mr. Sotheron Estcourt on the subject, and the result was that he introduced into the Friendly Societies' Act of 1855 the 44th and other clauses, which enabled trades societies, by depositing their rules with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, to come within the scope of the Act as far as regarded summary powers of dealing with fraudulent officers and members of their own society with whom there might be any dispute. For several years after no further step towards recognition was taken. But in the year when the Post Office Savings Bank Act was passed, the societies came forward and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to admit them to the same privilege as the Friendly Societies of investing their surplus funds in the bank. The right hon. Gentleman, with true statesmanship, granted them the privilege, so that they were then recognised for purposes of suing and being sued, and of investing their funds in Government securities. Then came the unfortunate decision of the Queen's Bench the other day, which entirely swept away all this recognition, and placed them absolutely outside the law of the country. Persons who knew much of the action of these bodies knew that a large portion of their action was that of provident societies, rather than of trades unions. They distributed thousands a week for purely benevolent purposes within the Friendly Societies Act. To his own knowledge that was the case with respect to one of these societies. Many of them had branches all over the country, and the treasurers of those branches were nominally members of the societies, but were generally publicans, in whose houses their meetings were held. The decision of the other day enabled dishonest persons to retain the funds of the societies, there being no legal process which would reach them. Therefore, rejoicing that this inquiry would be entered into, and hoping it would place the law on a much better footing, he would urge earnestly upon the Government the propriety of bringing forward some such measure as had been indicated by the hon.

  193
  Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), so as to provide that, pending the result of the investigation, dishonest persons should not be enabled, by the late decision of the Queen's Bench, to retain money intrusted to them, while the societies had no remedy. As this inquiry could only be of service in the event of thorough confidence being felt by both sides, it was of the first importance that the House should take such steps as would restore that confidence by enabling the trades unions to deal with their own funds' and to punish any who, in consequence of the decision, might abuse their trust. By adopting such a course Parliament would convince the working men that they were resolved to act throughout the inquiry in perfect good faith, and thus the labours of the Commission would be likely to result in a termination satisfactory to all parties.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) as to the desirability of the proposed inquiry, but did not approve mixing up together two questions apparently akin, but iii reality of a totally different nature. It was proposed that the Commission should inquire, in the first place, into the unfortunate outrages which had taken place at Sheffield, and then into the general effect which trades unions had upon the trade and industry of the country. These were both very proper subjects of inquiry; but the question was, whether it was quite expedient and quite just to refer them to the same Commission? Was it right to mix up a broad question of political economy with an investigation into certain local outrages? Was it right that a Commission appointed to inquire into one of the most serious questions of the day, affecting, as it did, the trade and manufactures of the country, should sit at Sheffield? He scarcely understood whether the compulsory powers asked for by the Bill to be vested in the Commission were to be limited to the Sheffield inquiry, or were to be exercised with regard to the broader question, which he understood was to be entered on at the conclusion of the other.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had not, perhaps, made himself clearly understood upon the point. The Commissioners were to have power to appoint examiners, who were to go down to Sheffield, under the direction of the President of the Commission, for the purpose of inquiring into the outrages which had taken place in that
  194
  town. If an application were made to the Commissioners for inquiry elsewhere, and the Commissioners should think it reasonable so to extend the inquiry, then, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, a further investigation might be made.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, these questions would be better gone into on the second reading; but he desired to know whether the Commissioners would be able to compel witnesses to attend upon any other questions except those connected? with these outrages?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, they would not.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman negative such a supposition; as, in the first instance, there had been some fear entertained that the Commissioners would have power to compel the attendance of witnesses generally and examine them on oath, with regard to the great question as to how far the operation of these associations had been beneficial or otherwise to the manufacturing and other interests of the country. It would certainly have been a strong measure to call upon the secretary of a trades union to detail compulsorily, and on oath, the whole of the private affairs of the association with which he was connected. He must repeat his objection to ' the two subjects—the outrages at Sheffield, and the effect of the trades unions on the interests of the country—being treated together, as such a course was likely more or less to bias the minds of the Commissioners, by bringing before them prominently and from the very first, certain deplorable acts of a criminal nature in such a manner as to lead them to conduct the inquiry on the basis that the trades unions were connected with the outrages, and thereby more or less prejudice the examination into the broad question of the effect of these organizations on the trade of the country.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) alluded did not exist. When Mr. Hume brought in his Bill to give freedom to workmen to sell their labour at the best price they could get for it, there had been stringent laws preventing them from doing so, and there was great doubt expressed when Mr. Hume's Bill was proposed whether it would not be injurious to the industry of the country. Since then certain acts had occurred which the masters said verified their anticipations of mischief, and that this Sheffield

  195
  case was an instance. The people of Sheffield said they had done no harm, and would prove their innocence. The question arose whether the laws at present existing were beneficial, and he could not see what mischief could arise from an inquiry into the Sheffield outrage, which had been brought forward as an illustration of the working of those laws? One party said the disease was fatal; another said it did not exist. An impartial inquiry would elicit the facts.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought the two subjects of inquiry should be conducted separately. Even supposing that the investigation of the outrages at Sheffield would not prejudice the minds of the Commissioners against the trades unions, the House must look to the effect which would be produced upon the minds of the working men by the two questions being treated as one. The minds of the working classes were just now in a very sensitive state; and he did not think that it would be desirable to suggest to them, even indirectly, that the organization of the trades unions was in any degree connected with the crimes which had been perpetrated at Sheffield. He would have confidence in any Commission that might be appointed to inquire into the case. That, however, might not be the opinion of the working men of England, more especially as this Commission not only inquired into the facts, but also acted as the adviser of the Crown. It was therefore important not to do anything which would wound the sensibilities of the working men by mixing up two subjects not necessarily connected. He entirely agreed with the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. Hughes) as to the propriety of restoring the trades unions to the position they had occupied before the late decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, which appeared to him to be in direct opposition to the expressed intentions of Parliament on the subject. It was a delicate matter to criticize the opinions of men so much above suspicion; but when Judges multiplied cases in which contracts were to be set aside as violations of public policy, they were not encroaching but treading upon ground which Parliament shared with them, and the recent decision was a very serious one, depriving these unions, as it did, of any legal status as benefit societies. Moreover, the discretion which was to be left to magistrates as to what degree of departure from the
  196
  purposes of a friendly society rendered organizations illegal, was one which they were by no means fitted to exercise. Upon this ground alone it was desirable to pass a provisional measure exempting trade societies from the forfeiture of those privileges which they had enjoyed prior to the recent judgment; and he should, defer proceeding with his Motion on that subject, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of his proposal.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, that as a manufacturer, he had had a great deal to do with the employment of labour; and, as far as he could judge, the law as it stood enabled both the workman to sell his labour at the best price he could obtain for it, and the manufacturer to buy labour at the cheapest, without molestation. The establishment with which he was connected engaged a short time ago to build a warehouse; but the master mason found great difficulty with his men, who, notwithstanding that he increased their wages and shortened their hours of labour, all struck at an hour's notice. He said, that were he to submit to their demands he should soon have a repetition of the misconduct. The firm offered the master every assistance in their power; and after the landlord of a beer-shop, who had been found intimidating new men who sought for employment, had been summoned before a magistrate and sent for a term to "Wakefield House of Correction without the option of a fine, and had his "topping" cut off—much to his astonishment—there was no further difficulty, and the work proceeded. There was a good deal of unreasonable feeling abroad that it was wrong for working men to stand to sell their labour at the best price; but it must be remembered that their labour was the only thing they had to sell, and the best thing to do was to leave these matters to take their natural course. Although his' firm employed about 5,000 people, they had not had a strike for twenty-five years. It was a great mistake on the part of employers to suppose that the lowest priced labour was always the cheapest. If a man wanted to succeed in life, it was not by paying a less price for labour than his neighbours; because by paying a little more than others he would secure the best workmen in the district, and by having the best workmen he would be much better able to compete in the market than those who payed a smaller rate. As when they went to sell goods, so when they went to

  197
  buy labour they must meet argument by argument, and in his opinion in the trades differences that had occurred the fault was quite as much with the masters as with the men. If there was not so much desire to run down the price of labour, and masters showed a more conciliatory spirit, there would be fewer strikes and outrages. If the law was imperfect, by all means let it be remedied. He thought it was not far from what it should be. They must not expect too much of Parliament. Anything practical that was to be accomplished must be brought about by the wise discretion of the masters and workmen in their dealings between themselves. If masters would try to get the best productions instead of the cheapest there would be fewer strikes.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been so often appealed to by friends of trade societies in reference to proceedings in that House, that he felt called upon to say a word upon the subject under discussion. No one could object to an inquiry into what had taken place at Sheffield; but the proceeding recommended by the Home Secretary was one which would be received with astonishment by the great body of the working people of the country. If he understood rightly, the Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the effect upon the industry of the country of trade societies legally and properly conducted. Parliament had long since recognised the legality and policy of trade societies. [Mr. WALPOLE dissented.] When Mr. Hume's Act passed, Parliament certainly recognised their legality. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rolt) shook his head, and seemed to think that legal trade societies did not exist, but Parliament had certainly recognised the status of societies having legal objects in view. He entirely objected to the proposal of the Government that any Chief Justice, however learned, should sit in judgment on one of the gravest political questions of the day, and undertake to decide whether institutions which had long existed under the sanction of Parliament were or were not legal, and whether they conduced to the prosperity of the trade of the country. The inquiry would obviously be useless, unless if the Chief Justice's judgment were against trade societies they were to be repressed, and to return to the state of the law previous to 1824. It could have no other effect than to destroy any remaining feeling of confidence in the minds of the working classes with refer-
  198
  ence to the conduct of Parliament. It was quite another thing to inquire whether any abuse, any illegal acts, had been perpetrated under the name of trades societies. Nobody could better inquire into that subject than the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate going beyond that. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested courts of conciliation or arbitration—was the Commission to investigate that subject? Some four years ago he had devoted to it much time in a Committee upstairs; a Bill had been carefully framed for the establishment of these courts, and it passed that House without opposition. It had been rejected, however, by the other House in the most contemptuous manner, without consideration, without reflection, and, he ventured to add, without intelligence. The House of Lords, therefore, were answerable for the present state of things, and any acerbity of feeling which might exist between employers and workmen. It was not necessary to have a Commission to re-consider that question. He hoped the labours of the Commission would be limited to the investigation of the illegal acts of trades unions, and that it would not enter into an inquiry whether acts perfectly lawful have been favourable or unfavourable to the trade of the country. The decision of the Court of Queen's Bench that a particular rule was illegal might be right; but the effect of the decision in making the society itself illegal was unreasonable. The most convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman at once to bring in a Bill to declare that illegal rules in benefit societies should not be enforced, but that the other objects of such societies, which were most beneficial to the working people and advantageous to the country at large, should remain. It was monstrous that, because some illegal rule had crept in, therefore funds which had been subscribed to meet cases of sickness should be left at the mercy of any one to swallow up for his own benefit.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has founded his argument upon quite an imaginary opinion, which he has attributed to me. He seems to think that my opinion is that there is no such thing as a lawful trade society. I entirely disclaim entertaining such an opinion. I know that there are many legal trade societies. I entertain no doubt that the great majority of trade

  199
  societies are legal societies. But it is also true that there are many of such societies which approach very near to the line of illegality. The whole object of this Commission is not to ascertain whether there are any legal or illegal trades societies, but to inquire into the actual operation of trade societies now existing. That is the point to be ascertained by this Commission—to ascertain their laws and regulations, and the nature of their operations. I think an inquiry of this kind is actually necessary to the legislation which all appear to think desirable. The point we have to settle is this. There is a broad difference between a criminal act and an illegal agreement. It is not a mere play upon words to make a distinction between a criminal act and an illegal act. The law recognises such a distinction, and the uncertainty of its application lies not in the law, but in the application of the law to the facts. An agreement may be wholly illegal, and yet the entering into it not necessarily criminal. All agree that general restrictions on trade are illegal; but agreements for that purpose, though illegal, are not for that reason merely criminal. The question of illegal agreements and their consequences is a fit subject for inquiry. I have no hesitation in saying that I have seen many decisions, pronouncing agreements null and void because they were in restraint of trade, which I much regretted. But to say that I would therefore sweep away this broad principle, which at any rate is something upon which the Courts of Law can rest in furtherance of an important public end, is an assertion which a bold man may make, but at which any man who has had experience in Courts of Law would hesitate. It appears to me that what is wanted on this subject is inquiry, with a view it may be to modify and to regulate the law, and, above all, to make intelligible to the working classes the principle that an act which is not criminal may be illegal, for upon that subject there is great confusion in their minds. If by inquiry you can modify or regulate this principle, and show the working classes that restrictions on trade, though not criminal may be illegal, I am sure you would be doing much to promote those benevolent objects which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes) and others have at heart. The whole object of the inquiry is a beneficial one. It is a mistake to suppose that the Commission is to
  200
  inquire into the trade outrages, and then into the general effect of trade societies. That is not so. The object of the Commission is to inquire into the nature of the laws regulating trade societies, and into the effects of those societies upon the working men and the employers of labour, with the view, amongst other things, to obtain information to enable us to consider how far we should modify, regulate, or qualify the principle that agreements in restraint of trade are illegal. Such an inquiry is all important. It is, of course, impossible to conduct it without reference to the outrages that have occurred; and it is also impossible satisfactorily to legislate upon the subject without further information.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the object of this Commision was so excellent, and it was brought forward in a spirit with which they must all so much sympathize, that he did not like to appear to approach it in a hostile spirit. If it were possible for the House by any means to put an end to differences between employers and workmen, no one would like to throw any obstacle in the way of the accomplishment of such an object. But, after the statements which had been made, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was attempting to do that which, in practice, would be found very difficult—namely, to make one Commission serve for two very different purposes, and which must to some extent interfere with each other. The Commission was first to ascertain by a general inquiry whether that House could with advantage adopt fresh legislation in respect to trades unions; and it was also, as he understood, next to discover, if possible, the perpetrators of acts of violence at Sheffield. These two matters were more fit for the consideration of two separate Commissions than of one. For the purpose of considering whether that House could with advantage adopt fresh legislation, he conceived that the Commission ought to be of a representative character; and he must say he did not see that there was any cause to object to the constitution of the Commission on that ground, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman had acceded to the request of the working men to have upon it a gentleman—Mr. Harrison—in whom, according to the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas Hughes), they reposed full confidence—as their advocate. It appeared to be fairly chosen. But

  201
  surely a representative Commission was hardly a proper body to discharge the judicial function of discovering the perpetrators of acts of violence at Sheffield. For such a purpose a very small and absolutely impartial Commission, consisting of the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and one or two assessors, would be better suited. He admitted that there were grounds for a general inquiry; but he was of opinion, like the hon. Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley), that they must not be too sanguine as to what could be done. Far more could be effected by the influence of public opinion than by any law. Certain objects were to be aimed at. Every facility should be given to workmen, not only to sell their labour to the greatest advantage, but to combine for the purpose of obtaining, by all constitutional means, the best price for it. They ought, at the same time, to be prevented from coercing others. It was desirable that the law on this point should be defined, as it did not appear to be accurately defined at present. With respect to the late decision on trades unions, there could be no question that it had thrown many of them, whose objects were quite innocent, outside the pale of the law, and that was a state of things which was as adverse to the employer as to the workman, for nothing could be worse for an employer than to force his workmen into illegality by taking from them the protection which was denied to other associations. He was glad a noble Lord (Lord St. Leonards) had brought the subject of conciliation courts forward in another place. He thought that some good might be clone by the formation of such courts as existed in France for the settlement of differences between employers and workmen. He again strongly recommended that the matters proposed to be submitted to the Commission should be kept distinct, and that two separate Commissions should be issued. If only one Commission were appointed, a great deal of time must be consumed before any Report could be made, and the workmen would have a right to complain that their case was prejudiced by being joined together with a special case of violence at Sheffield.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he did not like to hear things stated as facts which were not facts. He believed there was great anxiety in the country that the organization of trade societies should be inquired into. He assured the hon. Gentleman the Mem-
  202
  ber for the city of Oxford (Mr. Neate), that the most intelligent of the labouring classes with whom he was acquainted were now engaged in forming societies free and clear of trades unions. They called them "Free Labour Societies," because they were satisfied that from the conduct of trades unions labour was not free. The working classes would, he believed, repudiate the tyranny of the trades unions, whether this House legislated on the subject or not. But there was a strong feeling in the country for legislation on the subject.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be discouraged by the criticisms on his proposal which he had heard in the House, for he believed that the working classes were very anxious that this question should be taken up by the Government. The course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be attended with great benefit. He was on the Committee which had been referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he must say that the Bill to which his hon. Friend had referred did not pass because the public mind was not then ripe for its discussion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that there was a great desire on the part of the working men to have this inquiry instituted. He believed that something might be effected by this means in removing the difficulties attending the question of strikes. There could be no doubt that a man had a perfect right to obtain the highest wages which he could; but what was objected to in the interest of the working man himself, and also of the country at large, was, that there was a third power introduced between the workmen and the masters which took the form of a formidable protection, carried out by means of these trade unions. Large sums of money were raised by these unions for the purpose of sustaining the men while they demanded a particular sum for their work irrespective of the law of supply and demand. This was a system of protection which must defeat itself. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) said that no result could be arrived at which would be satisfactory to the working class; but he (Mr. Whalley) had known of three extensive strikes which had been voluntarily abandoned by the men in consequence of their being convinced by argument that they were attempting to carry out a system of protection. As another reason for having this inquiry, he might state that in

  203
  his own district, where efforts had been made to put an end to strikes, the most formidable difficulty which they had had to encounter were certain egregious fallacies which had been put forward under the authority of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill). For instance, he was quoted on one occasion as having stated, in one of his authoritative books, that it was quite justifiable for workmen not only to combine for a particular sort of work, and for a fixed rate of wages, irrespective of demand and supply; but that further than this, they were justified in adopting rules for the purpose of preventing too great a number of persons from entering into that trade and so establishing an injurious competition. When such arguments were put forward, he thought that it was quite necessary that there should be an inquiry in order to find an answer to such opinions. For his part, he believed that the inquiry would be of the greatest benefit.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had somewhat mistaken the nature of this Bill. The object of the Bill was not simply to give Parliamentary powers to the Commission to detect the perpetrators of the outrages at Sheffield, but in the inquiry into trades unions and associations, they were to have regard to the outrages which were alleged to have been perpetrated by means of these trades unions and associations, and to see how far such outrages were or were not connected with the organization and rules of these trades unions and associations. It was therefore a part, and, indeed, a necessary part of the subject, according to all the regulations and to all the workings of these institutions, to see whether the unions had led to any great extent to acts of outrage and violence, such as had taken place. The hon. Gentleman would therefore see that if this Commission had been issued independently of a direction to inquire into the particular Sheffield outrage, still the Commission would not have done its duty if it had not inquired into the working of these unions in reference to all acts of aggression against workmen. It was therefore a necessary part of the inquiry; and that it should be carried on by a Commission having Parliamentary powers would only have this effect, that they could more thoroughly investigate the subject, and thereby enable Parliament to deal more satisfactorily with
  204
  it. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) enlarged upon the importance—in which he fully agreed with him—of having tribunals established for the purpose of adjusting the differences between workmen and their employers. The hon. Gentleman totally misapprehended him if he thought for a moment that he (Mr. Walpole) was not of opinion that the hon. Member took great pains to establish such tribunals. He was perfectly aware that this was so. So long ago as Mr. Hume's Committee, there was a recommendation that there should be means found for settling such disputes. They did not attempt to define the means, but very few attempts in that direction had been made in Parliament until lately. Although the hon. Member's Bill had failed in the House of Lords, yet it was, perhaps, in consequence of this that a noble and learned Lord had now taken up the subject. The failure of that Bill was no reason for issuing the Commission; but still, if there were to be a Commission, surely the investigation should be completed, and should include this branch of the subject. He believed that there was no part of the matter more important than that there should be tribunals in which both masters and men should have confidence; and he believed that they would be better constituted for having the opinions of masters and men directly brought before the Commission, which should, as it were, set its seal on that which would be the best mode of securing the desired end. The hon. Member (Mr. Neate) would find that it was not so easy a matter to alter the law in the point he alluded to. The real fact was that the whole question of the legality of these unions, with reference to questions like that that had recently arisen in the Queen's Bench, turned upon this, what were to be the rules which were to sanction the status of such unions, so that they might be able to enforce their civil rights against members of their own body, and also against strangers, without trespassing upon the laws of the land in those respects in which laws were deemed necessary for the freedom of trade, or for other purposes, which, if they were not observed, would enable such societies to commit acts which they were now not permitted to do. It was the rules of these societies upon which the difficulties arose. There was no difficulty if the societies were simply for friendly or benevolent purposes, legalized by the Act of George IV,

  205
  apart from combining for the settlement of wages to be worked for and the hours of work; but if they went beyond into matters which the law did not recognise as legal, then there was established a state of things that might or might not be good, according to the rules for the organization of these societies. Although they could insist upon all their civil rights whilst they kept within certain bounds, yet beyond them they could not go until the Legislature had determined that what was now contrary to law should no longer be so. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) said that this Commission would be taken in a spirit (which was certainly not intended) of an inquiry hostile to working men; but all he (Mr. Walpole) could say was, that he had at that time several applications from working men asking for inquiry. And, in conclusion, he would express his own belief that this inquiry would do a great deal of good, and be beneficial to all concerned in trade, as well as to the country in general.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for facilitating in certain cases the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to make inquiry respecting Trades Unions and other associations of employers or workmen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to remove some defects in the administration of the Criminal Law, said, the measure was not one of an extensive nature, and was entirely directed to the removal of evils which had come under his own observation in the Central Criminal Court, in which he had the honour to preside. The House was aware that at present ample means were taken to secure the attendance and provide for the remuneration of witnesses whose evidence was necessary to establish the guilt of the prisoner. He proposed by the Bill to extend that power, so that it should not be confined to the witnesses who were required to establish the prisoner's guilt, but should also apply to witnesses who might establish his innocence. That was a matter of great importance to the due administration of justice. When prisoners made statements in their own defence, he had not unfrequently felt ashamed in asking them whe-
  206
  ther they had any witnesses to call, knowing, as he did, that they had no pecuniary means of compelling the attendance of witnesses who might or might not prove their innocence. It was, of course, necessary to provide safeguards against the abuse of this privilege, the nature and merits of which would be best considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was requested by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, who was then absent, to say that any measure on such a subject introduced by the learned Recorder was entitled to great attention and respect. That point of the proposed Bill which provided for the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused was entitled to favourable consideration, although the power might be much abused unless carefully guarded. He, of course, offered no opposition to the introduction of the measure; but it must be understood that the Government would reserve to itself the right to form an opinion on the Bill and its details, unless it was laid before the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to remove some defects in the administration of the Criminal Law, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY and Mr. COLERIDGE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 8.]

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
  Mr. SPEAKERacquainted the House, that his Warrant for the appointment of Members to serve on the General Committee of Elections was upon the Table:—Warrant read as followeth:—
  Pursuant to the provisions of "The Election Petitions Act, 1848," I do hereby appoint Samuel Whitbread, esquire, Member for the Borough of Bedford; James Clay, esquire, Member for the Town of Kingston upon Hull; The honourable Edward Frederic Leveson Gower, Member for the Borough of Bodmin; Sir Frederick William Heygate, baronet, Member for the County of Londonderry; George Sclater-Booth, esquire, Member for the Northern Division of the County of Southampton; and Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, baronet, Member for the County of Perth; to be Members of the General Committee of Elections for the present Session. Given under my hand this eighth day of February, 1807.
  JOHN EVELYN DENISON, Speaker.

  DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIPS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a

  207
  Bill to open the Professorships of Anatomy and Chirurgery, Chemistry and Botany, in the University of Dublin, to all persons, irrespective of their religious creed.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LAWSON and Mr. SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 10.]

  MINES.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Acts for the Regulation and Inspection of Mines, and into the complaints contained in Petitions from Miners of Great Britain with reference thereto, which were presented to the House during Session 1865."—(Mr.Ayrton.)

  LIBEL BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOCHLEN, Bill to amend the Law of Libel, and thereby to secure more effectually the liberty of the Press, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. BAINKS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—the Lord Tyrone after the Death of his Father.

PRIVILEGE.—MR. R. S. FRANCE.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was sorry to have to call the attention of their Lordships to a matter personal to himself, which, however, he should not have brought before them had it not involved the privileges of their Lordships' House. He had received a pamphlet written by Mr. France, a railway contractor, which, purporting to give a review of his conduct as regarded a certain Railway Bill during its progress through the Legislature, not only canvassed his opinions, but also made some reflections upon him as Chairman of Committees. He had no objection to having his opinions canvassed by any one; but Mr. France went further, and boldly stated that he would deal with the noble Lord in his judicial capacity. Remarking that he was the contractor of the Mold and Denbigh Railway, he charged him (Lord Redesdale) with having come to an unwarrantable decision with reference to a Bill in which that railway was concerned,
120
and with having inserted a clause in another Bill relating to the same railway. He (Lord Redesdale) was unable to understand how Mr. France could have confused matters as he had done; but it was much to be regretted that the circumstantial nature of his pamphlet gave it all the appearance of truth, while, as a matter of fact, it was false from beginning to end. He intended to draw Mr. France's attention to the matter by letter, and leave him to take what course he pleased; but unless he received from him a complete retractation of all the charges he had made against him, he should think it his duty, in the course of next week, to ask their Lordships to order Mr. France to the Bar of the House.

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
HER MAJESTY'SAnswer to the Address, reported as follows:—
"My Lords,
"I THANK you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address.
"You may be assured that I shall always be ready to co-operate with you in all Measures which have for their Object the Improvements of the Laws and Institutions of the Country, and the Promotion of the Welfare and Happiness of My People."
Address and Answer to be printed and published.

ROYAL NAVY.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in moving for certain Returns respecting the Royal Navy, said: My Lords, I have thought it right to bring forward this Motion, because there has been, as it appears to me, a great misconception throughout the country as to the state in which the navy has been left by the late Government. I do not know whether I can ascribe that opinion to a few words which fell from the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) in another place at the end of last Session; but certainly the notion has spread until it has been stated in different parts of the country, and has been repeated for many months, that we have at the present moment no sufficient number of vessels for naval purposes, and that the

  121
  country was left by the late Government without efficient protection so far as our navy is concerned, although there has been during the last six years a large expenditure devoted to that portion of the public service, amounting to between £65,000,000 and £70,000,000. Such at least has been the impression. Your Lordships will therefore see that it is desirable that no opportunity should be lost of calling for Returns showing what has really been done in the way of building ships during the six years that the late Government was in Office. As many ships, I believe, have at least been constructed during that period as during any other six years of peace. In those six years we built 140 vessels of different kinds. That is a considerable amount of shipbuilding. Not only have we done this, but it should be remembered that our path has been beset by difficulties. Great changes have taken place in construction both as regards iron and wooden ships, and much difference of opinion has existed as to the amount of plating which should be applied to the different classes of new ships. While the transition in all departments was so great, the Board of Admiralty over which I presided felt a great responsibility rested upon them in regard to the expenditure which should be incurred. On the one hand, we felt it desirable to do all we could to keep up the navy in a state of efficiency; and on the other, we recognised the folly of building a vast number of ships which might be useful at the moment, but which would certainly be superseded in the course of a few years. I think we acted wisely in not building ships faster, because ironclads are a very expensive description of vessel, and new experiments and improvements were being constantly made with reference to size, armament, and sheathing. It was almost impossible to provide a very good fleet while these experiments were proceeding, or to collect a number of vessels and bring them to act together, as we might have done if greater uniformity prevailed among them. In fact, if any opinion was to have been given on our conduct, I thought that opinion would have been that we had done too much rather than too little in the way of shipbuilding. I had not only to determine what we should do, but to judge of the probable consequences hereafter. When I first came into Office we had not a single iron-clad vessel. We now possess thirty-three, many of them pf great size. During
  122
  a time of rapid progress in the art of shipbuilding it is almost impossible to construct a satisfactory fleet, because every new ship possesses improvements which render it superior to its predecessor. At the same time, it would have evinced great negligence of the true interests of the country to have adhered to the pattern of the first ship. The Warrior, for instance, was a very fine vessel at the time of its construction, but in the course of a few years it has become comparatively inferior to many others that have been since built. Neither the offensive nor the defensive qualities of that vessel are as good as we could wish. I was anxious, as far as possible, to anticipate the wants of the country a few years hence, and I think that we certainly have made considerable progress. I believe that, on the whole, there is no ground for dissatisfaction with the vessels that have been built. I have reason to believe that the opinions of the distinguished officers of the Channel fleet are favourable; and when, as at Cherbourg, the merits of our vessels have been compared with those of other nations, the general opinion was that we had no reason to be dissatisfied with the vessels we possessed. I cannot see, therefore, that there is anything to blame as far as the construction of our iron-clad ships is concerned. Then again, as regards the wooden vessels, in the early part of my administration—namely, from 1860 to 1862 or 1863—we did not know the gun which these vessels would have to carry. Unless you know what gun a vessel has to carry you are working a great deal in the dark, and it was clear that our ships would eventually carry a much larger gun than was then employed. The demands of the service, too, compelled us to repair and employ many of our old vessels, and this could only be done at a considerable cost. Upon these grounds, therefore, the number of vessels built was, I believe, as great as it should have been. I may, perhaps, now make a few observations on another point—the question of expenditure. It seems to have been supposed in many quarters that the whole of the £70,000,000 voted for the navy was applicable to the purposes of shipbuilding. Now, any such notion as that is a great misapprehension. The amount really expended in dockyards during those six years, not including vessels built by contract, would be about £10,000,000; but a great proportion of that sum has been expended in the

  123
  repair and outfit of vessels already constructed. The proportion spent in building would be less certainly than half of the £10,000,000. We also built by contract vessels at an expense of about £7,000,000. This sum—namely, £7,000,000—with about £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 expended in the dockyards, would represent, I believe, the whole of our expenditure on shipbuilding. It has been charged against us that we were proceeding on a wrong principle. It must, however, be remembered that we were passing through a period of transition, when our progress had to be guided by experiment. Great praise had been lavished on vessels built in private yards, and their merits were extolled at the expense of those constructed in the Government yards. We were constantly warned that our ships as then constructed were of no use, and were told that the turret principle was the one which ought to be adopted. Reasons, of which the House is aware, induced the Admiralty to purchase a couple of turret vessels which were lying in the Mersey. Before we bought them, those by whom they were visited brought away flaming accounts of their excellent qualities—it was said that they were capable of destroying the whole fleet—but no sooner did they come into our possession than every one found fault with them. No doubt they are good vessels for coast defence; but the discomfort to the officers and men are so great that it soon became evident they were not fit vessels to send to sea. I paid them a visit, and, although the officers treated the matter with the good temper and good humour which usually characterize the officers of the navy, it was evident that there was a considerable amount of discomfort, and that if turret ships were adopted they ought not to be constructed according to that pattern. At another time we were told that we ought to imitate exactly vessels that were being built in America; and before the arrival of the Miantonomoh we were continually being asked why we did not build an impregnable vessel, whose sides should be but little above the level of the water, of great speed, carrying one or two heavy guns, and requiring but few men for her management. I was very glad when that vessel arrived at these shores, because it at once became apparent to every one conversant with the subject that it was impossible to make a crew comfortable on board such a ship. The ventilation depended entirely on the steam-
  124
  engine, and the crew of the Miantonomoh were not only exposed to every discomfort, but they were liable to be smothered in the event of anything happening to the ventilating engine so as to prevent its working for a few minutes. I was informed by one of the officers on board that ship that on one occasion the engine had been stopped accidentally for a short time, and that the crew were scarcely able to breathe until it was set to work again. It was evident that it would have been impossible to send such a ship on a three years' cruise to any part of the world; and therefore vessels of this description, however well fitted for coast defence, would not be applicable to the general purposes of the British Navy. With regard to any general reduction in the expenditure upon the navy, I may remark that out of the £70,000,000 there were at least £40,000,000 expended upon objects with which no Board of Admiralty could interfere. With regard to the accounts, I can only say that I was very anxious that the most strictly accurate accounts should be kept in the dockyards. An enormous expenditure was incurred in those establishments in consequence of converting sailing vessels into steamers and wooden ships into iron-clads—the latter process involving the erection of very costly machinery for bending, planing, drilling, and otherwise working plates of iron six inches thick. I was very anxious, taking into consideration the vast and annually increasing expenditure in the dockyards, that a good system of keeping accounts should be introduced into those Departments; and accordingly in 1860 I consulted upon the matter with the late Sir Richard Bromley, who was well acquainted with the subject, and it was with his assistance that what are called "the Expense Accounts" were established, and an officer was appointed in each dockyard to audit the accounts. I believe, from what I have heard, that upon the whole the accounts are in a state of gradual improvement; and although I am not prepared to say that they may not be yet further improved, I am convinced that they are established upon a sound and good system. It was, however, objected in the House of Commons, and in the public newspapers, that our accounts were of no use, as it was not possible to ascertain from them the total cost of any particular vessel, so that the expenditure upon it might be contrasted with the price of a similar ves-

  125
  sel built in a private yard. It was said that we ought to prepare a complete balance sheet like any private firm, showing the cost of each individual vessel, and that every expense in connection with each dockyard must be carried into account, and a balance struck in the same way as would be done in a private concern. I doubted whether such a system would not lead to confusion; but as the Board of Admiralty were anxious to meet the wishes of many Members of the House of Commons, we tried to do what was desired. It was necessary to take all the expenditure of each dockyard and to apportion it amongst the different vessels built or repaired there. At Portsmouth the expenditure on lectures and schools and a necessarily expensive police ran up the expense enormously, and when the accounts were placed before the House of Commons the remark was made—"Look at the enormous sums which your ships cost!" and it was alleged that ships built at Portsmouth cost a great deal more than they did in private yards. But was it fair to compare the expenses of public with those of private establishments of this kind? It was not possible to institute such a comparison without prejudicing the former. The object of our national dockyards is not merely to build ships quickly and cheaply, but to have great resources for their repair in time of war. To ensure that, you must have a large supply of machinery, a good deal of which will in time of peace be idle, and the idleness of which will prevent the manufacture being carried on economically. We were constantly told in 1863 that we ought to copy commercial men, who managed their affairs much better than we did; and one distinguished Member of the House of Commons, Sir Morton Peto, said, "Look at my firm; we have larger stores than the Admiralty. We have £17,000,000 dispersed all over the world, but we take stock constantly, and our accounts cause us no difficulty." I do not know whether the public would now repeat the advice which was then so frequently offered by the newspapers, more especially whether they would set up the example of Peto and Co. These were not the only subjects of accusation against us. Considering the smallness of the amount involved, a great deal has been said respecting the iron ballast which has been used to pave some portions of the dockyards. During the last twenty years a quantity of iron ballast has been from
  126
  time to time taken out of sailing ships, and, as it was not required in steamers, the weight of whose engines obviated the necessity for ballast, it was piled up in various parts of the yards, where it occasioned a good deal of inconvenience. At Chatham a little of it was sold, but the purchaser afterwards found that it would not answer his purpose, and declined to take any more, and a similar attempt to dispose of it at Plymouth entirely failed. Long before I came into the Admiralty a quantity of this ballast had been used for paving the yards, and finding the piles of iron continually in the way, after vainly endeavouring to sell it, we continued to use it for paving as it was wanted. There is still, however, a large quantity piled up in some of the dockyards. Since it has been laid down it has proved of great service in facilitating the heavy traffic of the yards. It has, I hear, now turned out to be very valuable in a commercial point of view, and has been sold for an enormous sum. I am very glad to hear that such is the case, and all that has to be done is to take it up. I myself did not know how to sell it. Perhaps I did not know how to advertise it. Now, however, it had been admirably advertised; for when you want anything advertised you can find no better place in the world than the House of Commons in which to advertise it. I may remind the present Government that there are a number of old-fashioned cannon balls at Woolwich, which they might do well to advertise also, as, if old cast iron be so valuable, they would probably bring in a good round sum. These are samples of the accusations that have been made against the late Admiralty. I should have no fear of submitting their proceedings to the judgment of any Committee whatever, whether as regards the men or the building and repairing of ships. With regard to the subject of manning the navy, I may inform your Lordships that when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was last in Office, a Commission, of which Lord Hardwicke was Chairman, was appointed to take this question into consideration. When we succeeded to Office, the Board of Admiralty adopted the Report of that Commission, and dealt with many of its recommendations. We established training ships for boys, and improved in many ways the condition of the seamen, in accordance with the recommendations contained in that Report, and our measures were attended with, great success. We

  127
  had no difficulty in getting boys for the navy. It was said, why did we not take the pickpockets and idle boys off the streets of London and educate them for the navy?—it was said they would make admirable sailors. Why, we did not want them. We had no difficulty in getting well-behaved lads who were educated for the purpose, and as for men, thanks to the continuance-service men and the lads for the training ships, our ships for the last four years when they have been commissioned have never had to wait for men. The training ships were established on a good system, the receiving ships were also very much improved, and the men on returning from leave went on board and remained there till they are wanted again. Of course, all this occasioned considerable expense, for the comforts of the men were increased. Then, as to the Reserve, we were told it was most important that such a body should be formed, and especially with a view to getting up a friendly feeling between the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy. We established the Reserve. This Reserve now contains 16,000 men, and the result certainly has been the creation of a very friendly feeling between the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy. Indeed, I believe that the good understanding between them was never better than at the present moment. In this respect we only carried into effect the recommendations of the Commission, and we carried out those recommendations as far as we could. We did not carry them all out, because that would have involved very considerable expense; and, considering that we were spending £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 annually upon the men for the navy and the Reserve, we did not think it advisable to go into further expense on that head. Then, as to docks and basins, we thought it quite necessary that increased docks and basins should be formed, and we added very considerably to our dock accommodation. When we came into Office there was he dock capable of receiving the Warrior. We enlarged one of the docks at Portsmouth, so as to fit it for the accommodation of that vessel. We improved and enlarged other docks both there, at Plymouth, and at other ports, and prepared a plan for the construction of new docks at Chatham and at Portsmouth, the carrying out of which would involve the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money. I had myself seen what had been done by France
  128
  Toulon, by Italy, and by other Powers; and I was of opinion that we ought to lose no time in adding to our dock and basin accommodation—an opinion which was concurred in by a Committee of the House of Commons, which approved the plans submitted to it by the Board. Therefore, my Lords, I think that as regards men, and docks and basins, we did all that we ought to have done under the circumstances. It would have been unreasonable to go further, because the expenditure of those years was very large. We were obliged to increase our Estimates to meet the demands of the China war, and when we are carrying on a war at a distance of 15,000 miles it is desirable to place such a force in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief as shall enable him to bring that war to a close. That is the best economy, and we succeeded in it. I believe the great force we had in China was the means of bringing that war so speedily to a termination, and convinced the Chinese of the futility of any longer continuing the struggle against England and France. From 1860 till last year we have gone on somewhat reducing our Estimates. For my own part, I never desired to take a larger sum on the annual Estimates than necessary for the maintenance of such a force and for the construction of such vessels as were required for immediate service. While the navy is in a state of transition, I adhere to that opinion. At the same time, I am ready to admit that on this subject you must deal with matters as they are at the time, and as foreign politics may appear to require. That is a question for the Cabinet and not for the Admiralty. What the Board of Admiralty has to do is to maintain such a force as would be sufficient for the purposes required. In regard to the future, I do not expect there will be any great reduction in the Estimates unless there is a reduction of force. I can see no means of making a great reduction of expense without reducing the number of men, and as it is generally admitted that we must have a large fleet I do not imagine there will be any great reduction in the number of men. With respect to guns, I hope our three heavy guns of 6 tons, 9 tons, and 12 tons weight will prove useful and serviceable weapons wherewith to arm our vessels of war. These, my Lords, are the grounds on which I defend the policy which the late Board of Admiralty followed. I think, we

  129
  went as far in shipbuilding as we were entitled to do, and as to the position of the men and the general condition of the navy, we improved both; although, like all human institutions, the navy is, no doubt, capable of still further improvement. I have not said one word on the patronage of the Admiralty, because no appointments made by me have been ever attacked. There was one appointment, indeed, to which objection was made; that was the appointment of Mr. Reed as Chief Constructor of the Navy. That appointment, of which I am ready to undertake the full responsibility, I made under circumstances that rendered it absolutely necessary. It was necessary to build vessels plated round the water-line, and capable of carrying very heavy armaments; and we asked the department of the Controller to produce lines for certain vessels with proper flotation; but they could only produce them 400 feet long. I was convinced that there must be means of obtaining shorter vessels with the necessary flotation, and I therefore resolved to bring in a new person, and charge him with their construction. I afterwards received from some of the best authorities on the subject of iron construction a report in which they expressed their approval of the skill and ability with which an iron vessel had been put together in one of our dockyards. So far I am justified in the appointment of Mr. Reed, and I hope that the present Board of Admiralty may be equally fortunate in any appointment they may make. Without detaining your Lordships further, I shall now move that there be laid before this House—
  "Return of the Number of Ships added to the Royal Navy by building or purchase, stating the Tonnage of each Vessel, from the Year 1860 to 1865 inclusive."—(The Duke of Somerset.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords—Considering the many observations which have been made in certain quarters on the naval administration of the noble Duke, I cannot be at all surprised that he desires to take the earliest opportunity of bringing before your Lordships the state of the navy, and submitting to your Lordships an abstract, at least, of a certain blue-covered pamphlet—with which I believe the noble Duke to be tolerably familiar—written in vindication of the policy which the noble Duke pursued at the Admiralty. Certainly, my Lords, I have no cause to complain of the course which the noble Duke has taken
  130
  in the vindication—in many respects unnecessary vindication—of his administration of the navy, still less so because, in vindicating his own economical arrangements with regard to the navy, he has laid the ground for future vindication of his successors against any attack of an excess of expenditure arising from circumstances and the progress of events such as the noble Duke has detailed to your Lordships. My Lords, I regret the less my inability to follow the noble Duke through the elaborate details into which he has entered, because I am very far from sharing in the condemnation which has been passed very freely on many portions of the noble Duke's administration. On the contrary, I always believed that the noble Duke was, in the administration of his office, an active, industrious, energetic Minister. I believe, moreover, that the noble Duke brought to the administration of his office a thorough and entire honesty of intention and purpose; and I should be the last man to deny that during the course of the noble Duke's seven years' administration there were many improvements introduced into the system of the navy—improvements of which the more merit belongs to him, because during the whole of that period, as regards ships and guns, the service was in course of transition, which rendered it more difficult for him to deal with the subject; and I should not have thought it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any observations if it had not been for a single remark the noble Duke made at the commencement of his observations, in which he referred to a speech made by a right hon. Friend of mine, the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), very soon after he entered on office, with regard to the state of the Navy Reserve. I am sure the noble Duke will do my right hon. Friend the justice to say that during the whole of his administration he never met from him with any factious opposition, or anything but a cordial desire to support the measures which he introduced for the benefit of the navy, and approval of the expenditure which they rendered necessary. Very shortly after my right hon. Friend succeeded to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty a question was asked in the House of Commons as to the state of the Navy Reserve; and my right hon. Friend was obliged to say, in answer, that he regretted to state that he did not find the Navy Reserve in a satisfactory condition,

  131
  or, indeed, in such a state as he had a right to find them—so much so, that the Admiralty had a difficulty in finding relief for the ships that return from foreign service. If my right hon. Friend wanted any justification for the statement it is to be found in the Report, with which the noble Duke must be more familiar than most of your Lordships. The Report is dated February, 1866; and upon this very point of the insufficiency of the Reserve the Report Btates—
  "The same necessity for employing small vessels would, I apprehend, exist in a future war, and in peace time they are indispensable. And how do we stand? In the last two years there have been lost to the service—paddle-steamers, thirty; screw-steamers, twenty-two; and in the same period fifty-one gunboats have been removed from the navy. To replace these a very few small vessels, already on the stocks, are being completed, and seven of the Amazon class are building. In the meantime, our reserve is inadequate to supply the ordinary reliefs on foreign stations, and should an extra vessel be anywhere required we have not one disposable."
  The Amazon, as your Lordships will re-collect, is the unfortunate vessel which has since been destroyed by accident. That is the Report, not of a hostile Committee, of the noble Duke's first Naval Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Frederick Grey, at the commencement of the Session of 1866. Consequently, my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty was obliged to say, in answer to a Question put to him in the House of Commons, and not bringing the matter forward in the way of accusation, that the state of the Reserve was not satisfactory, for, according to the language of a member of the preceding Board of Admiralty, the Reserve was not sufficient for the ordinary reliefs on foreign stations, and if one extra vessel were required, there was not one disposable. My right hon. Friend did not put this forward as a charge against the noble Duke; but the Report I have referred to is a complete vindication of the statement which my right hon. Friend could not but make in giving a plain and honest answer to the Question put to him. I need not say I have no objection to furnish the noble Duke with the Returns he asks for, but I would suggest to him that there should be some slight alteration in the form of the Return. The noble Duke, in the latter part of his speech, said he wished for a Return of the number of ships added to the navy, by building or purchase, in each year from 1860 to 1865, and I propose to insert the words
  132
  "in each year" in the Motion. I hope, too, that the noble Duke will carry the Return down to 1866; for, though the noble Duke is not responsible for the last half year of 1859, as the Estimates were then of his predecessors, he is responsible for the whole of 1866, for which the Estimates were brought forward by his Government. The Return in that form will give a complete detail of the whole number added in each year, and I think this alteration will be necessary in order to make it a complete Return of the state of the navy, as the noble Duke found it, and left it. It is not sufficient to make a Return of the additions made to the navy during that period; we ought to have a corresponding Return of the various vessels withdrawn, sold, lost, or otherwise disposed of within the same period. That will give exactly what the noble Duke requires. The reason why I lay stress on obtaining accounts of each separate year is because I find an extraordinary discrepancy in the amounts of the Estimates for the years in question. I confine my observations entirely to the building of vessels by contract, and I find that in the first five years of the noble Duke's administration of the navy, very large sums were taken; but it is a matter open to question whether in the last two years out of the seven of the noble Duke's administration, sufficient pains were taken by the Admiralty to keep up the stock of vessels of a description fitted for war. The variation in the Estimates is remarkable. For 1860–1 the amount for building by contract was £1,478,000; for 1861–2 it was £1,621,000; for 1862–3 it was £1,470,000; for 1863–it was £867,000; for 1864–5 it was £882,000; for 1865–6 it was £564,000; and for 1867 it was only £318,000. In these two last years the Estimates fall very far below the Estimates for building in the previous years. In 1865–6 the Estimate for an iron-clad vessel was £120,000, but no work was done in that respect, and the money was returned to the Exchequer; and out of the Estimate of £318,000 taken in the last year only £67,000 were expended for new ships. All this time foreign countries, and especially France, were rapidly increasing their navies, and we are told in the Report I have quoted that during the same period no less than fifty-two steamers and fifty-one gunboats were lost to the service. I think, therefore, it is important to see how far the Estimates

  133
  of the two last years were sufficient to supply the deficiencies occasioned by the ordinary wear and tear of the service. The noble Duke says that the Estimates of the navy depend on the number of men, and that is true to a great extent. The noble Duke added that the Estimates do not depend on the First Lord of the Admiralty; and I can readily imagine that the noble Duke found that during the last years of his administration a very considerable difference of opinion prevailed between the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty with respect to the amount necessary to provide for keeping up the strength of the navy; but I should think there can be no doubt as to the desirableness of replacing the large number of ships that have been withdrawn. Having made these observations in vindication of my right hon. Friend against any supposition that he made a charge against the noble Duke, I can only say that I have listened with great satisfaction to the observations of the noble Duke, and have not the slightest objection to furnish the Returns in the form I have suggested—indeed, I think they will be of very great service.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I have no objection to the addition suggested by the noble Earl in regard to the vessels which have been done away with and disposed of in various ways; but I think it is desirable to state the class to which they belonged, because a mere list of numbers, without stating the character of the ships withdrawn, would be perfectly useless. I cannot suppose for a moment that the noble Earl will argue in favour of restoring the wooden line-of-battle ships withdrawn in 1859. "We had no iron-clad fleet before that time, and therefore no comparison of numbers can afford a fair estimate of the strength of the navy at the two different periods. I presume, also, that notice will be taken, in reference to the expenditure referred to, of the vessels that have been built by contract. For my part, I have latterly wished, whenever an entirely new model is adopted, that the vessel should be constructed in a Government dockyard, for the simple reason that when a vessel is built by contract, we are absolutely bound by the specifications, and in the event of any alteration being required during the building, it is always attended not only with great expense, but with no end of delay. Within the last two years a heavy expense has been incurred in making the small changes
  134
  and improvements in the class of vessels referred to by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I agree with the noble Duke that a mere Return of numbers will not give the required information unless the different classes of ships are specified. I also think that the Returns should show as fully as possible not only the vessels which have been sold and otherwise lost in the service, but the alterations that have been made in the different classes of vessels. I hope the noble Duke will not think that I would object to the disposing of old and obsolete vessels. On the contrary, I am of opinion that as soon as it becomes manifest that a ship is no longer serviceable, it should be at once referred to an inspector, so as not to incur any additional or unnecessary expense in maintaining a vessel that is no longer useful.
  EARL GREYsaid, the last observation made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) induced him to express a hope that the construction of the navy was a matter in which the Government would not proceed too fast. Their Lordships must remember that in the Queen's Speech of 1859, Parliament was informed that a large Vote would be asked for the re-construction of the navy. That Vote was explained to be required in consequence of our wooden steam-ships of the line having fallen much below the required state of efficiency. In the debate that followed he (Earl Grey) ventured to protest against the proposed outlay at the time. He stated that it was already known that ships of the line built upon the system then in use would soon turn out to be useless for all the purposes of war. His remonstrance, however, was not listened to, and a considerable number of new ships were laid down at a great expense. Some of them, he believed, had never been completed at all, and some had been finished in a very different way from what was originally designed, and at an increased expense. The whole subject of naval construction was at present in such a state of transition—there was such a strong certainty that the ships of this year would not be the ships of the next five, or, perhaps, even of the next two years—that he held it to be most inexpedient to expend large sums of public money in building ships which they could not be assured would meet the exigencies of war when the time for their service really arrived. He very much doubted—and his doubts were shared by persons of far more

  135
  knowledge than he could pretend to, whose attention had been carefully directed to the subject—whether our system of building iron-clads would, in the end, turn out to be a wise policy. Their Lordships were very well aware what was the custom in former days with regard to cavalry. Both men and horses were so overloaded with defensive armour that they were almost safe from the blows of an enemy—they were also almost as unable to injure him. By degrees this was seen to be a bad system; armour fell into disuse; and for knights so carefully protected that they had lost the power of offence, it was found advisable to substitute a swift and active cavalry. There seemed to be no small reason for believing that we might be falling into a similar mistake by over weighting our vessels with armour and so crippling their movements. Some of our ablest men maintained that such was the progress of science that very soon no ship we might be able to build would be able to withstand the artillery brought into play, and that it would, therefore, be expedient to proceed upon a different system. He was much inclined to believe that instead of striving at an enormous cost to build iron-plated vessels able to resist the daily increasing power of artillery, it might prove to be better to build vessels of very great speed, carrying one or two of the most powerful guns, and trust to their not being hit to their power of destroying the enemy, rather than their being able to resist their projectiles. This principle, he thought, might very probably turn out to be the correct one as regarded the construction of the navy. At all events he was sure, seeing they were as yet ignorant of what might be the improvements and discoveries made in the future in regard to naval science, that it would be neither wise nor prudent to expend too large sums of money in producing armour-plated ships beyond what were immediately wanted according to our present lights. Tears ago—so far back as the administration of Lord Melbourne—he was very much opposed to building ships of the line without steam power, being convinced that although the means then known of applying steam to the purposes of war were still so defective, it was certain that the progress of science would discover some means of using this most powerful agent in ships of war, and that therefore ships without it would be come useless. But his objections were
  136
  overruled. It was urged that we were too weak as compared to other Powers in line-of-battle ships, and that more must be built. Large sums were accordingly applied in building ships of that kind, which had proved, as he had ventured to predict, utterly useless. When this became evident, the cry was that we must lose no time in building a large fleet of screw ships of the line to take the place of those that had become obsolete. As he had already mentioned, this was formally recommended to Parliament in the Speech from the Throne in the year 1859, when he again opposed this policy, pointing out that it was already evident that the use of shells must soon make the use of these large wooden ships impossible without extreme danger. In spite of his opposition, however, large sums of money—hundreds of thousands, if not millions—had been spent in building vessels which he had condemned, and which were now admitted to be useless. He must say that the responsibility of these errors rested not with the Admiralty, not even with the Government that might be in power, but with the House of Commons. Whenever there was a great mistake made in the administration, it generally arose from the pressure put upon the Government in the House of Commons, to adopt without due consideration some measure for which there might be a popular cry at the moment, and the consequence had been that there had been a great waste of the public money upon the navy. He ventured to say that if their Lordships went into a careful examination of the money that had been so wasted it would be found that a great part of it was attributable to the House of Commons.
  Motion amended and agreed to.
  Ordered, That there be laid before this House Return of the Number of Ships added to the Royal Navy by building or purchase, stating the Tonnage of each Vessel, in each Year from the Year 1860 to 1866 inclusive:
  A similar Return of all Ships, stating their Description and Tonnage, withdrawn from the Royal Navy by Sale, Loss at Sea, or otherwise, during the same respective Years.—(The Duke of Somerset.)

PROPOSED TRADES UNIONS DEMONSTRATION ON MONDAY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY,in rising to ask the intention of the Government with respect to the proposed procession of mem-

137
bers of trades unions through several of the most crowded thoroughfares of the metropolis and the West End next Monday, said, he was fully aware of the delicacy of the subject to which he was about to address himself; but there was a general feeling that such processions assembling and taking possession of the principal streets of London, for the purpose of making what was termed a demonstration, was an evil that was on the increase, and if allowed to go on would assume a position to defy all attempts to interfere with them, and therefore it was that he had deemed it his duty to bring the matter under the notice of the House; and he must confess that, after the announcement Which had been made by Her Majesty's Ministers on the first day of the Session, he had hoped that those who took the most active part in promoting the intended demonstration would have come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for making it, for a most distinct promise had then been given on the part of the Government that they would lose no time in dealing with the great question of Reform, which was undoubtedly the great question of the day. He was, under these circumstances, greatly grieved to find that the leaders of the movement should, instead of waiting to learn what course Ministers might take on the question, deem it necessary to be beforehand with them. He deeply regretted that there should be any necessity for a Member of their Lordships' House rising for the purpose. In what he was about to say with regard to the proposed trades procession, he hoped it would be distinctly understood that he had no desire whatever to say a single word which might tend to irritate the public mind; and if he did use any expression of such a nature, he assured their Lordships that it would only be used in mistake and not from intention. Indeed, at the present moment the public mind was quite enough excited upon the subject without anything uttered in Parliament being construed into a ground of further irritation. He could look upon the proposed meeting and procession of Monday next in no other light than a monstrous demonstration of the trades unions of the country. He would be the last man to stand up in their Lordships' House and deny the right of the people to meet and discuss any political grievances under which they deemed themselves to be suffering, or for the purpose of procuring a fair representation of their opinions in
138
Parliament. But that was a very different thing from the procession with which we were threatened on Monday next, which, under pretence of meeting in the Agricultural Hall, at Islington, was to assemble in Trafalgar Square, He felt that the fair and open discussion of political subjects was not the real object of the proposed meeting; for no one could fail to see that at such a meeting no discussion in the ordinary sense of the term could take place, but that it was held, if not for the express purpose of intimidation, at least by bringing immense multitudes of people to a central place in the metropolis, and then taking a circuitous route through all the most frequented streets of London, to cause such a demonstration as might influence Parliament in its deliberations on the question of Reform. Surely, if those persons who proposed to come from the north, south, east, or west of the metropolis, and congregate in the neighbourhood of Trafalgar Square, really wished to go to the Agricultural Hall at Islington, for the purpose of discussing their political grievances, there was no occasion to resort in the first place to a great central square, from which the start was to take place. He understood that measures for the preservation of the public peace had been taken, to the extent at least of procuring six out of every hundred persons being sworn as special constables. [The Earl of DERBY intimated dissent.] The noble Earl shook his head; but if he were incorrect in that statement, all that he could pay was that he was sorry that there should be less endeavour on the part of the promoters of the meeting to preserve the peace than he gave them credit for. Nobody could deny that the passing of such a procession through the principal streets in a circuitous instead of in a direct line was designed mainly for the purpose of producing an effect on the clubs and the West End of the town; and he reminded their Lordships that every time such a procession were permitted, it became a precedent which rendered every similar attempt less likely to be resisted. He thought it rather unwise that the Department of the Government which had been more in direct communication with the leaders of this proposed demonstration than had usually been the case in any similar circumstances, had not exercised their powers of persuasion more successfully for its prevention, and thus rendered it unnecessary to call the atten-

139
tion of Parliament to the subject. He knew very well how difficult it was in discussing such a question with a large body of men to say that such a course could not be permitted; but he had hoped, at all events, that the counsel which the Government seem to have taken with the leaders of this movement, would have enabled them to have pointed out the loss and inconvenience which must result to the populace who happened to reside in the thoroughfares which were chosen as the route of the procession. But though these meetings might be permitted now, the matter was, after all, a question of degree; for it was possible that they might become such an enormous grievance that it would be absolutely necessary to put a stop to them. He should be the last person in the world to rise for the purpose of embarrassing the Government. On the contrary, after the course they had announced with reference to Reform, and which, he thought, was the only course they could have pursued, everybody must have wished that the proposed demonstration might have been dropped; but arrived as they were now within a few hours of the meeting, the Government must have determined upon the steps they would take; and there could be no want of discretion, therefore, in asking them to state, for the information of Parliament, what those steps were.
THE EARL OE DERBY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that no apology was required from him for asking the question which he has just put to me. There can be no doubt that this question is one of very serious importance; and I can assure him, also, that he cannot regret more deeply than I do that those who have the conduct of the vast organization, and on which they have expended so much pains and care for several months past, should not have taken a more correct and a sounder view of the duty they owe to the public and the interests of the country generally than to persist in holding a procession which, although I am bound to say it is strictly within the law, yet is certainly liable to produce, and must produce, very great inconvenience, and perhaps, also, acts of illegality. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) does Her Majesty's Government too much honour in supposing that their powers of persuasion are such as to induce these gentlemen to forego the advantage of being allowed to display in the streets their immense organization,
140
with marshals and sub-marshals, with stars, scarves, banners, and an exhibition of the most perfect military discipline. We certainly cannot pretend to such influence with the leaders of this movement as to have persuaded them, in deference to any opinions of ours, or to any measures which we are likely to introduce on the subject of Reform, to desist from the course on which they have long determined. Moreover, my Lords, much as I deprecate the course these gentlemen are pursuing, I entirely believe that they desire, as far as they can, that the procession may be perfectly peaceable and orderly. But the noble Earl will allow me to say that he is in error when he supposes that a certain number of each of these bodies are to be sworn in as special constables. It is not within the law that they can be sworn in as special constables; for no man can be so sworn in except upon information sworn before a magistrate to the effect that the person who swears such information believes that a breach of the peace is imminent, and that, in order to guard against such breach of the peace, he tenders his services to preserve the peace. Now, it is quite clear that these gentlemen, coming forward and saying—I believe most sincerely—that they are acting with the most peaceable intentions, could not be expected to swear that the assemblage of delegates and of various other bodies which they are organizing will be such an assemblage as endangers the public peace. Not but that I think breaches of the peace will be committed, though certainly not by those who are engaged in the procession; but when, in the heart of a crowded metropolis, processions of, it may be, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 men gather and occupy busy thoroughfares for a considerable portion of the day, it is impossible that the idle and vagabond class on such occasions should not cause much inconvenience and some danger. And I would have the gentlemen who undertake the conduct of these vast processions to recollect that although the procession itself may not be illegal, yet it may become illegal through the circumstances attending it; and in that case those who so recklessly expose the metropolis to danger cannot escape from the responsibility they thus incur. They must, and they will, be held personally liable for any loss to property or to person which may result from their acts. There can be no doubt that the proposed meeting will

141
cause very considerable obstruction of the ordinary traffic, and great inconvenience—that it must cause great loss both to the operatives themselves, who will lose a day's wages, and also to the shopkeepers, and inconvenience to everybody to an incalculable extent;—and all for what? For the purpose, as they state, of making a demonstration in favour of Reform. But Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Earl says, are quite prepared to deal with that question, and bring it forward for the consideration of Parliament. And here I must remark that demonstrations of this kind are little calculated to promote that calmness with which so grave a question ought to be submitted to Parliament. Moreover, if we are to believe the assertions of the leaders of this organization, the multitudes who are about to assemble in this way are to meet for an object to which I will not say the present Government, but to which no Government, and no statesman who can ever be called upon to conduct the affairs of this country, would ever consent; because we are told that that which alone will satisfy these vast assemblages and their leaders is the adoption of manhood suffrage and vote by ballot—two things which, combined, would absolutely and entirely overthrow the Constitution of this country. Well, what encouragement has Parliament for entering upon the course of deliberating and considering how far it should extend the franchise and increase the liberties of the people if it is told, "All you do is nothing—is of no use whatever. Here we bring together a demonstration of our physical strength and our numbers, to show you, the Parliament, that unless you do that which we know it is impossible you can ever consent to do, all your labours will go for nothing—they will produce no gratitude, but will only lead to fresh demonstrations and exhibitions of force, until we obtain that which would be a practical revolution in this country?" My Lords, I have not so poor an opinion of the House of Commons as to believe for a single moment that any demonstration of this sort will intimidate them or lead them to consent to extreme demands. On the contrary, I only hope it may not have the opposite effect of deterring them from fairly and candidly considering the merits of the case, and that they may not be induced to refrain from giving that which may safely, reasonably, and justly be given, owing to exhibitions
142
of physical force and of numbers on behalf of that which is wholly alien to the Constitution and the spirit of the country. In regard to the noble Earl's inquiry as to what the Government are going to do in respect to the proposed procession, it is only necessary to say that they will confine themselves within the limits of the law. We have carefully considered what measures it might be in our power to take to put a stop to this demonstration and interfere with its progress; and we are informed that this procession, however mischievous, injurious, and liable to produce loss of property, and it may be of life, is not in itself illegal, and that we should not be justified in interfering with it so long as it conducts itself peaceably, and only passes quietly through the streets. There are two Acts of Parliament which bear on this subject. One of them, passed in the reign of Charles II., prohibits any persons, under a penalty, from attempting to present petitions to Parliament in greater numbers than ten together. There is another Act of George III., to which, I suppose, the noble Earl referred, in respect to assemblages within a mile of Parliament. It provides that if any persons shall assemble within a mile of Parliament for the purpose of either passing resolutions, petitions, or remonstrances with regard to matters concerning the State, in that case the assembly shall be an illegal assembly, with all the penal consequences attaching to it as such. But there is nothing in the statute to say that persons shall not meet within a mile of Parliament for the purpose pf there forming a procession—not to come down to Parliament with a view of intimidating it, but, as is said to be intended in this instance, with a view of proceeding exactly in an opposite direction—to Islington, there to hold a meeting in the great Agricultural Hall. There is nothing absolutely illegal in that. The duty of the Government, therefore, must in this case be confined to taking care to have an ample amount of force ready to interfere, if necessary, for the preservation of the public peace, or for its restoration, if that peace is disturbed. Further than that it is not within our legal competence to interpose. But the noble Earl said—and it is a point very well worth consideration—that the constant repetition of these processions and demonstrations may render it necessary to make some alteration in the law. I trust that nothing of the kind will be required, because we know that such an alteration

143
of the law, however just or necessary, would meet with very great resistance, and might be thought an undue interference with the liberties of the people—an interference which could not be justified, except by a general feeling on the part of the country, that these demonstrations had become quite intolerable, and a source of evil and mischief so grave as to render the interposition of Parliament imperatively requisite. Therefore, I can only say that, while deprecating the holding of this procession, yet finding it legal, we can do nothing except provide a force sufficient for the preservation of the peace. We much regret the course about to be pursued by its promoters, and we think it one which is liable to lead to the most unfavourable consequences, and likely to create a feeling of bitterness between the different classes of the community, which it is the duty of every good citizen as far as possible to prevent.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I speak in the presence of noble and learned Lords who will correct me if I am wrong, but the impression on my mind, from my recollection of former statements in Parliament and elsewhere, when matters of a similar nature have been under discussion, and from the decisions of the Judges, is this—that when any great assembly of persons is held under circumstances which create fear—reasonable fear—in the minds of firm men, such assembly becomes of itself illegal, whether any act of violence be committed or not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend has not exactly stated the proposition correctly. It is true it has been frequently decided by the Judges of the land that large assemblages of persons, in terrorem populi, would constitute an unlawful assembly; but no mere assemblage of numbers would make a meeting illegal. There must be a fear of violence or disturbance of the public peace in order to constitute an unlawful assembly.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: But this is not a mere assemblage of persons, but an assemblage of persons sufficiently drilled to carry a column of 40,000 or 50,000 men in military array through the streets of London. That is not an ordinary meeting of men, it is not one of the meetings within the contemplation of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, they are sufficiently drilled
144
to be able to proceed peaceably in procession through the streets.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was Ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.