Sitting of 12 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. Octavius Duncombe, for York County (North Riding).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Divorce Bills nominated; on Fire Protection appointed; on Limited Liability Acts, Mr. Kirkman Hodgson added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Oxford and Cambridge Universities Education.
Considered as amended—Dublin University Professorships* [59].
Third Reading—(£369,118 5s. 6d.) Consolidated Fund,* and passed.

CATTLE PLAGUE—COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED CATTLE.—QUESTION.
MR. READsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, To whom the Owners of Cattle slaughtered by Inspectors from August to November, 1865, are to apply for compensation, and through what channel such compensation will be paid?
MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that the owners must send their claims in to the clerk of the local authorities, who would forward them to the Privy Council. When they had been duly verified they would be sent to the Treasury, and payment would be made by the Paymaster General.
MR. READsaid, he wished to know who would verify the certificates—the local authorities or the Privy Council?
MR. HUNT: Both.
MR. REBOWsaid, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman was directly opposed to what had been stated by Mr. Corry. That right hon. Gentleman said that the claims must go through the Clerk of the Peace for the County.
MR. HUNT: There is no contradiction, for the Clerk of the Peace is generally the clerk of the local authorities.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE— REFORM STATISTICS.—QUESTION.
MR. LOWEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay upon the table a Return for every Borough in England and Wales, showing—the Name of Borough; the number of Male Occupiers below £10 rental; the number of Male Occupiers at £30 rental and upwards; and the number of Male Occupiers at £7 rental and under?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All the information, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have is really upon the table or in the Library of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Return of Mr. Baines, No. 81 of last year, and at that of Mr. Horsfall, No, 494, he will find in them all the information he requires. At the same time, if it would be for the convenience of the House, or of the right hon. Gentleman, that it should be produced in a tabular form, we shall be happy to give it him. But I can assure him that the clerks in the Poor Law Board are much overworked at this moment.

STALYBRIDGE RAILWAY STATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board has been directed to the very inconvenient and dangerous condition of the Stalybridge Station of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Companies; and, if so, whether the Board has had any Communication with the Companies upon the subject, with a view to oblige them to make better arrangements for the convenience and safety of the public?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Yes, Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been so directed. On December 8, 1865, and on June 18, 1866, the Mayor of Stalybridge called the attention of the Board to the "disgraceful condition" of this station. On the 15th of December, 1865, and 11th of July, 1866, Colonel Yolland inspected and reported against it. His recommendations have been communicated to the two Companies in question. The Board of Trade wrote again on the 12th of September, 1866, to both Companies. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire replied on the 15th that they were in communication with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and on the 21st the Lancashire and Yorkshire replied that they were in communication with the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire. A further reminder was sent to both Companies on the 21st November, to which the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire replied on the 30th that they were still in communication with the Lancashire and Yorkshire. No answer has yet been received from the latter Company. The attitude at present of the two Companies resembles the celebrated position of the two commanders—
  "Lord Chatham with his sword drawn
  Was waiting for Sir Richard Strachan
  Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
  Was waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
  The Board of Trade has no power to compel these Companies to make better arrangements. They are in possession of Colonel Yolland's Reports, which have also been laid before Parliament. The responsibility rests with them, and that responsibility will be very serious should any accident occur in consequence of their neglect of these repeated warnings. Both Companies have Bills before Parliament this
  1704
  Session, and I presume Parliament can refuse to sanction new works communicating with the Stalybridge Station until it has been improved.

SCOTLAND—CANONGATE CHURCH, EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to fill up the present vacancy in the Collegiate Charge of the parish of Canongate, in Edinburgh; and, whether he intends to introduce any measure relative to the Annuity Tax in that parish?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that in consequence of the representations made to the Government, it was not intended to fill up the presentation, and it was under consideration whether they would bring in a Bill relative to the annuity tax.

RAILWAY COMPANIES ARRANGEMENTS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. FILDESsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade respecting the Railway Companies Arrangements Bill, which Bill stands on the Orders of the Day for Second Reading for Monday, the 29th April, Whether the Second Reading of this Bill is certain to be moved on that day?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: This Bill, Sir, was postponed to a distant day, in order to give the Government and the country ample time to consider the intricate question of railway legislation. The opinion of all parties will doubtless be guided very much by the proceedings of the Debenture Holders' Committee, by the Royal Commission, and by other circumstances to which I need not advert. If the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question a few weeks hence, I shall probably be able to give him an answer.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES EDUCATION BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. EWART,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to open the benefits of Education in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to students without obliging them to be Members of a College or Hall in those Universities, said, that as most hon. Members were aware, in former days students were allowed to live at the Uni-

1705
versities without belonging to any College or Hall. Colleges were intended for the cheap education of students, instead of which they enhanced the cost of it There were said to have been at one time 30,000 students at Oxford, and as many at Paris. Colleges and Halls, under the name of Hospitia, were afterwards founded. The famous College of the Sorbonne still survived; so did our Colleges and Halls at Oxford and Cambridge. In Germany, Italy, and Franco free access was allowed to the Universities without obliging students to belong to any College, and education was there very much cheaper than in this country. In Scotland and Ireland the same privilege was enjoyed with the same result. He would appeal, in support of his case, to the testimony of the Commissioners who inquired into the system of University education at Oxford. The Commissioners stated in their Report that—
"No skill or vigilance in colleges would reduce the cost of living so low as it can be by the ingenuity and interest of a student."
Professor Wall said—
"It is to the admission of students to the University, without connection with a college or hall of any kind, that I look for the greatest good to the University, the Church, and the country."
Professor Vaughan stated—
"Lodging-houses connected with the University, though not with colleges, would extend the University system. I think such a change would at this moment be opportune, as well as advantageous."
In the University of Aberdeen the average expense of a student for five months was £20 or £25. A great many Scotch students were obliged to work in the farm in vacation, and this witness stated that—
"One who holds the plough and cuts the harvest is one of the best scholars that ever was within the walls of a University."
He was struck the other day in reading in The Times a quotation, from a letter which referred to Scotch students in Aberdeen, to the effect—
"In reference to the Senior Wranglers who have come from Aberdeen during the last few years, it is no disparagement to say that the majority of them have roughed their way upwards from the very humblest ranks of life. Unless parents among the working classes in England are brought to feel the importance of educating their boys—and education is realized as a parental duty—the Wranglers will still come from the other side of the Tweed."
It might be said that immorality would result from the lodging-house system; but precautions might be taken to have licensed lodging-houses. Wealthy students could
1706
lodge in Professors' houses. Dissipation would be beyond the means of the poor. He considered that the measure he proposed was at once a Liberal and Conservative one. Liberal because it threw open the portals of the Universities; Conservative because it revived the usages, and restored the original character of those venerable institutions. He was convinced that it would promote the lasting interests of the Universities and the nation.
Moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to open the benefits of education in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to students, without compelling them to be Members of a College or Hall in those Universities.—(Mr. Ewart.)
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he did not rise at that stage to oppose the Bill; but, as a son of one of our Universities, must really protest against the system which was growing to such a height in that House of dry-nursing those institutions. It seemed to him that the Universities were far more capable of knowing what they wanted, and of carrying out the necessary measures for supplying it, than certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, all of them devoted friends to those venerable corporations, according to their own account of themselves. He did not dispute the archaeology of the hon. Member in what he had said of the University system in ancient tiaies—
"Chronica si penses cum pugnant Oxonionses,
Post aliquot menses volat ira per Angligcnenses;"
which meant that the students of Oxford in the Middle Ages were very much like the gentlemen who now met on Saturday afternoon in Trafalgar Square. The Universities had by their charters and constitution great recuperative powers, which the University Reform Bills of the last twelve or fourteen years had increased, and they had since been actively engaged upon measures of Reform. If it should be desirable to admit external students at Oxford and Cambridge, both Oxford and Cambridge had it in their own power to provide for their admission. If that change were to be carried out, he ventured to say that the method of doing it best suited to Oxford would on that very account not be the method best suited to Cambridge, a University which possessed, though some people seemed to forget it, its own system and its own traditions. Fourteen years ago there was an Oxford Reform Bill, which he was willing to believe was very much wanted. A year

1707
afterwards a similar Bill for Cambridge, which was not so much wanted, was brought in and hurried through almost sub silentio, because it was thought by Members to be only the second series of the novel of the preceding season. Oxford and Cambridge had ample means of acting for themselves in that matter; and that being merely a question of University discipline, if they saw fit to admit external students, they would do so without leave or licence from the hon. Member for Dumfries. Still, he desired to see what the Bill was before raising any opposition to it. He trusted that he would then find it merely nugatory, and not mischievous. Better than nugatory he could not expect it to be.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEalso desired to sec the Bill, and had no intention to oppose its introduction. Not only had the Universities power to do that which, as far as he could gather, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) desired to do, but at that very moment the question was under consideration at the University of Oxford, whether or not it was fitting to adopt some such plan as the hon. Gentleman's measure purported to effect. It might, he thought, be safely left to the University authorities to consider the mode of extending the benefits of those institutions.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that at Aberdeen, in consequence of the numerous small bursaries that existed, persons had been enabled to go through a University education who could not have had any prospect of doing such a thing on this side of the Tweed. He had presented a petition a few years ago from seven parochial schoolmasters in Aberdeenshire, whoso salaries were exceedingly small, and out of the seven no fewer than five were Masters of Arts who had gone through the University of Aberdeen. Pie could also name a score of persons who, by means of the bursary system in the Aberdeen Universities, had risen almost from the labouring class of Scotland to the highest possible literary and scientific eminence. The system, however, he was sorry to say, had been injuriously affected by the recent changes connected with the union of the colleges at Aberdeen.
MR. EWART,in reply, said, he did not, of course, object to the Universities effecting improvements themselves; but he maintained that that House had a right to see that good measures were adopted, as
1708
far as they could be, in those great institutions.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. EWART, Mr. NEATE, and Mr. POLLARDURQUHART.

FIRE PROTECTION

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. M'LAGAN,in moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the existing legislative provisions for the protection of Life and Property against Fire, said, that the numerous fires which had occurred within the last few years, the mystery with which the origin of many of them had been invested, the suspicious character of not a few of them, and the serious losses, both of life and property, with which others had been attended, had directed public attention to the whole question of fires. There was a strong opinion abroad that a Parliamentary inquiry should be instituted, with the view of devising the best means that could be adopted for the protection of life and property from fire. He but joined in the expression of that opinion in asking for the appointment of a Select Committee, which would be a natural sequence to the Select Committee on Fires in the Metropolis, which sat in 1862, of which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) was Chairman, and to which we were indebted for much useful information and many valuable suggestions. The principal points to which he wished the inquiries of the Committee should be directed were—first, the proper construction of public buildings and warehouses, upon which depended very much the prevention of fires spreading; second, the means for extinguishing fires, under which head were included the supply of water and the arrangements and appliances that could be brought into action on the outbreak of a fire, such as the establishment of fire brigades, fire-engines, &c.; and third, the expediency of having a judicial investigation into all fires. The importance of providing some means for preventing the ravages of fire was acknowledged at a very early period. The Romans, for instance, had bands of men whose principal duty was to watch for and extinguish fires. About 800 years ago it was enacted in this country that all fires in houses should be extinguished at the ringing of the curfew bell, under a penalty;

  1709
  and about'300 years ago bellmen were appointed in London, whoso duty it was to ring the bells at night, and call out, "Take care of your fire and candle; be charitable to the poor, and pray for the dead." So also from time to time Acts had been passed with the view of preventing and of extinguishing fires. But still, the great increase in the number of fires and their devastating character showed that those legislative measures had not proved quite effective. For instance, in London alone the number of fires has increased from 681 in 1840 to 1,487 in 1864—that was it had been more than doubled in twenty-four years. No doubt there had been an increase also in the number of houses; but the increase in fires had been much greater than the increase in houses. And though the fire extinguishing arrangements were now much more efficient than they were, and had been recently brought under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the number of fires had consequently somewhat decreased, our means of protection against fire were still inadequate as compared with those in some other cities. For instance, while in London there was only one engine station for every six square miles, there was in Paris 15th, and in New York 1½ for one square mile; in London there was only one fireman to one square mile; in Paris there were 11 firemen, and in New York 64 firemen to one square mile; in London there was only one fireman to 20,000 inhabitants; in Paris and New York there was one to 1,338 and 676 inhabitants respectively; in London there was only one lire-engine to three square miles; in Paris and New York there were about 1¾ to each square mile. He might state that he gave these and other figures very much on the authority of Mr. Young, the author of Fires, Fire Engines, and Fire Brigades. But these arrangements in London, however unfavourable they contrasted with those of Paris and New York, would be reckoned efficient and complete when compared with the provisions against fire that were made throughout the country generally; for if we excepted such towns as Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, &c., matters were in a most unsatisfactory state. Where private Acts had been obtained by which the municipal authorities had been enabled to bring a sufficient supply of water into the towns, to establish efficient forces of firemen and engines, and to take proper precautious in
  1710
  the erection of houses, the results had been most satisfactory. We had a striking instance of that in Liverpool, where, in the five years from 1838 to 1843, up-wards of three quarters of a million were lost in warehouse risks. So serious were the losses to the insurance companies, that they were obliged to raise the mercantile rates of insurance from 8s. per cent to 30 s. and 40 s. per cent. These rates were tantamount to excluding a great deal of property from insurance. The authorities, appreciating the great danger to which much valuable property in the town wan exposed from fire, obtained two Acts of Parliament—the one to enable them to introduce a largo supply of water to extinguish fires and water the streets only; the other, to give them power to make it imperative on all owners of warehouses to erect and alter their warehouses according to certain conditions and restrictions. The effect of the carrying out of the provisions of these Acts was to cause the rates of insurance to fall again to 8s. per cent. Now, he expected that one of the results of the labours of this Committee, if appointed, would be the adoption in other parts of the kingdom of measures which had proved; so beneficial in Liverpool. The present mode of conveying intelligence to the different stations of the breaking out of a fire were most inefficient; he would mention one method in use in America which might be adopted with great advantage in; our large cities—he meant a telegraph system. In the principal cities of America as many telegraph stations were established in each district of the cities as were considered sufficient for the speedy acquiring: and transmission of information. When a fire occurred intimation was sent to the nearest station, which communicated at once to the central telegraph station, and it in turn transmitted the news to the engine stations. It was of immense importance that early information of the outbreak of a fire should be received, and there was no better way of accomplishing that than by such a system as that in use in America. The next subject of the inquiry of the Committee would be the means of ascertaining the causes of fires. Unfortunately, the information we had hitherto been able to obtain on this point was very scanty; and the short sentence at the end of the greater part of the newspaper reports of fires—" the cause or origin of the fire is not known"—proved how much we had to learn in that respect. The only

  1711
  report of the causes of fires which we had was that issued annually by the London Fire Brigade, which was organized by that able and intrepid superintendent, the late much lamented Mr. Braidwood. To him and his successor, Mr. Shaw, we were mainly indebted for these useful and curious reports on the causes of fires. Inquiries, he believed, were always made by the Brigade into the origin of the fires immediately after they had been subdued; but to show how extremely difficult it was to arrive at the true causes, he might state that 474 out of 1,487 fires in 1864, or nearly 32 per cent, were returned "causes unknown;" while in 1866 the proportion was even larger, for 589 out of 1,338, or 36 per cent, were returned in the same way. He had no doubt that the members of the Fire Brigade were most assiduous in their exertions to discover the truth, and that we might depend upon the Returns being as accurate as could be arrived at under the circumstances; but it was evident that there was a necessity for a more searching investigation being made into all fires by a well-qualified person who was accustomed to receive and sift evidence. Such an investigation would be productive of much good in various ways. On that point the late Mr. Braidwood wrote—
  "One of the greatest preventives of carelessness in the use of fires and lights would be a legal inquiry in every case, as it would not only show the faults that had been committed, and thus warn others, but the idea of being exposed in the newspapers would be another motive for increased care."
  Mr. Samuel Brown, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, also said—
  "The minuteness of inquiry will not only tend to give greater facilities of drawing useful conclusions, by enabling the inquirer to classify facts, but will lead, as it has already done, to direct attention to those causes which are of most frequent occurrence, and capable of remedy by watchfulness or change in habits. It serves also to indicate how men of science can give their services most effectually in the preservation of life and property. Thus the greatly increasing cause of fires, 'spontaneous ignition,' has led to some interesting chymical experiments into the nature of substances that may be thus dangerous to society without human agency."
  It was likely that if proper inquiries were made into the causes of fires there would be considerably more restrictions placed on the warehousing of certain substances than was the case at present. For instance, we were all afraid of gunpowder being stored near our dwellings, and that material had always been the subject of the greatest precautions, and yet it had been found that
  1712
  very serious explosions, quite as bad as any from gunpowder, would take place when water was brought into contact with nitrate of soda and sulphur heated to a high temperature; and yet few were heard complaining of stores of these substances being near their dwellings, often in proximity to one another. So, also, there were great precautions taken against large quantities of petroleum; and yet turpentine, which had comparative immunity from the rigours of the law, was more ignitable than, and quite as explosive as, well-refined petroleum, as was shown by the dreadful explosion from turpentine which took place in Liverpool some ten or twelve years ago, which shattered and blew down several of the walls of the vaults in which it was stored. One great good that would result from such an investigation as he proposed would be, as Mr. Braidwood said, the reducing the number of fires from carelessness. In the first twenty-one years of the existence of the London Fire Brigade, there were 9,341 fires reported on, of these 2,511 were attributed to curtains, 1,178 to candles, 932 to gas, and only 100 to carelessness. Now, it was quite clear that the curtains would not take fire themselves unless some light or fire was brought to them; nor would the candles cause a serious conflagration unless they were brought too near some inflammable materials. He might safely, therefore, conclude that the greater part of the fires attributed to "curtains" and "candles" were really due to "carelessness." On that point it had been well said—
  "Carelessness, when reproved and shown the right way of proceeding, if persisted in, becomes wilfulness, and should therefore be severely punished. Reading in bed was a fruitful source of fires; and with the knowledge we have, and the instances of its pernicious effects continually occurring, it cannot be called other than wilful—it certainly is not carelessness. The recklessness with which candles, lucifers, gas, the inflammable oils, and other easily kindled materials, are used and treated in everyday life can scarcely be called carelessness, now that the danger arising from their improper treatment is known."
  Not long ago he had read of a farm labourer who, being engaged in the stackyard, and having indulged in a smoke, put his pipe into his coat pocket, and while he was working pushed the coat into a stack. The fire in the pipe not being extinguished ignited the coat and then the stack, and in a short time several stacks were burnt down. It was said to be simple carelessness that was the cause of the fire. Hundreds of such cases were occurring every

  1713
  day in town and country, in which valuable property was destroyed and life jeopardized and lost. He had seen a report of a miner being sentenced to ten days' imprisonment, with hard labour, for endangering the lives of his fellow-workmen in a gaseous pit by lighting his pipe by the flame of his safety lamp. Another miner was fined 40 s., and in default of payment was committed to the House of Correction for two months, for striking a match and lighting his pipe in the pit. An engine keeper, also, who endangered the lives of his fellow-workmen by careless conduct in the working of his engine rendered himself liable to prosecution; and there was no reason why carelessness in fires should not be similarly dealt with. One of the great benefits that would be derived from a judicial investigation into fires would be the prevention of incendiarism, or, at all events, the reducing of the number of incendiary fires. There was a strong suspicion amounting almost to a certainty that the cause of a great majority of those fires, the causes of which were returned as unknown, was incendiarism. Fire-raising was now a frequent crime; and insurance offices, owing to the great competition among one another, were reluctant to prosecute any individual unless the suspicion was very strong against him. Fire-raising was now become a trade with a gang of swindlers, who made it their sole business to arrange fires with a view of defrauding the insurance offices—
  "Their plan is to take houses in different parts of London and in the suburbs, selecting the premises with an eye to their being as far distant as possible from the Fire Brigade stations. The houses are furnished, and immediately an insurance is effected on one of them the gang prepare the house for the fire and remove the furniture to another house. When the fire takes place they make their escape from the burning tenements with their night clothes over their ordinary clothing."
  Again, he was quoting from a Liverpool paper—
  "The frequency of these conflagrations in Liverpool cotton warehouses when the market is low and their rarity when prices are high is a suspicious circumstance when observed over a long period."
  These statements were corroborated by Mr. Chadwick in an able paper he read before the Social Science Association in 1865—
  "He found that while less than one-half of the properties are insured, nearly three-fourths of those burnt are insured. He asked the late Mr. Braidwood how on any doctrine of chances there
  1714
  could be more burnt of insured than of uninsured houses? His answer was—The brigade were regularly occupied in preventing the spread of fires a large proportion of which they knew were wilful. They came to their conclusion from primâ facie circumstantial evidence as to the times and modes of the fires, the recency of insurance, the parties named being in debt or straitened circumstances, suspicions as to the quantities of the stock and furniture consumed, full and high insurances of old tumble-down or inconvenient premises, the immediate production of well-matured and complete plans for re-building the premises, which must have been prepared before the fire."
  Mr. Payne, the coroner of the city of London, for a time held inquests on fires, and he gave as evidence that he found that 23 per cent of them were clearly wilful, that one-half of the remainder were apparently accidental, and the other part from causes unknown, including suspicious causes. But they were not left merely to surmise as to what would be the effect of having a judicial investigation into all fires. Mr. Humphreys, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Fires in the Metropolis, stated that by a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that Court has no power to inquire into the cause of a fire unless death has ensued. He stated that the holding of inquests upon fires was revived a few years back by the coroner for the City of London, and immediately after that the fires fell one-fourth in proportion. In several of the cities in America an officer called the fire marshal was appointed, whose duty it was to investigate into every fire, whether suspicion attached to it or not; and he had power to examine witnesses on oath. On the institution of this office about twelve years ago there had been only one conviction for arson during the previous thirty years. There were now on an average fifty arrests and six convictions annually. The salutary vigilance which that officer exercised had been the means of reducing the number of incendiary fires in the half-year ending the 31st of May, 1866, to sixty-one, being twenty-one less than it was in the corresponding six months of 1865. In Baltimore, also, there was a fire inspector, who investigated the cause of every fire, and prosecuted when necessary. For the first eighteen months after his appointment there were 223, or about 149 a year. In six years there was a gradual but rapid decline from that number to ten incendiary fires a year. In France an official inquiry was made into the cause of every fire that occurs in small towns and villages by the local authorities, and a report of the investigation was forwarded to the Procureur Imperial; in the large

  1715
  towns in which were courts of justice, the inquiry was instituted directly by the Procureur Imperial. Strict investigations were made into all fires in Russia, Prussia, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Hamburg, and Bremen. In Scotland, within the last two or three months, the Lord Advocate Patton issued a circular to the procurators-fiscal requiring them to institute an investigation into the origin of every fire to which was attached any suspicion, and to satisfy themselves as to the absence of any ground for suspicion in cases of extensive destruction of property or where life had been endangered. The only objection to this investigation was that it was done in private; and therefore it had not the effect of deterring others at a distance from committing the offence. The proper party in England in whom the power of investigating fires should be seated was the coroner. It would be the duty of the Committee to inquire as to the expediency of investing him with this power. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRDseconded the Motion. Inasmuch as he understood that no opposition was to be offered to the appointment of the Committee, it was not necessary for him to' trouble the House further than to say that inquiries such as suggested would prevent the spread of incendiarism; because at present fire insurance offices were put to such expense in conducting investigations in disputed cases, that rather than enter upon them they preferred to pay the claims.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed," to inquire into the existing legislative provisions for the protection of Life and Property against Fires in the United Kingdom, and as to the best means to be adopted for ascertaining the causes and preventing the frequency of Fires."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)
  And, on March 27, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. BEACH, Mr. AGAR-ELLIS, Mr. GORST, Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. LANYON, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. LUSK, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. MILLER, Mr. READ, Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN, Mr. TURNER, and Mr. WHITMORE.

  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Select Committee on Divorce Bills nominated:—The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. LAWSON, Mr. MONCREIFE, Colonel FRENCH, Colonel PACKE, and Mr. AYRTON.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Shipping Local Dues* (41); Duty on Dogs* (42); Railway Traffic Protection (43).
Second Reading—Recovery of Certain Debts (Scotland) (14).

RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD REDESDALE,in presenting a Bill for securing the traffic on railways from interruption by the creditors of companies, said, that at this moment very great apprehension was felt by certain railway companies lest proceedings might be taken against them by individual creditors, which would have the effect of stopping the working of their lines. An inquiry was going on in "another place" on this subject, and it was extremely desirable that no steps should be taken by any individual while that inquiry was pending, which might tend to the inconvenience of the public, or to the injury of the general body of the creditors of those companies. The Bill which he begged to lay on the table would suspend the power of proceeding against railway companies until the 1st of August, with the intention of the measure being renewed by that time, or modified by legislation of a different character. In that way great relief would be given, and railway property would be secured from invasion by single creditors.
  A Bill for securing the Traffic upon Railways from Interruption by the Creditors of Companies—Was presented by The Lord REDESDALE; read 1ª. (No. 43.)

RECOVERY OF CERTAIN DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 14.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
RECOVERY OF CERTAIN DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 14.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was one which was likely to be favourably received in Scotland. He had himself presented a petition in its support from the Scottish Trade Protection Society, signed by 1,500 merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and tradesmen; and a noble and learned Friend near him had also presented a petition in favour of it from the Chambers of Commerce in Scotland. He was not aware that any petition had been presented against the measure except one; but the interests of the law agents in Scotland—whose opposition was not unnatural—he was convinced would not be injured by the change. The provisions of the Bill, their Lordships would find, were very simple. Under the Small Debts Act in Scotland, the Sheriff had a jurisdiction
  1700
  to the extent of £12. These powers of the Sheriff Court had, he believed, been very efficiently exercised; and there had been in consequence a great desire felt in Scotland that the jurisdiction of the Sheriff in the recovery of debts should be extended to the amount of £50. The present Bill was introduced for the purpose of meeting that wish as to a certain class of debts—those, namely, where the creditor was compelled to bring his claim within three years. This class of debts was very well known, and had been established by judicial decisions, and included merchants' accounts, servants' wages, and other matters of that sort. Under the law as it stood, the decision of the Sheriff, whether principal or substitute, was final; but there was an appeal in some cases from the Sheriff Substitute's Court to the Sheriff, whose decision was final. It was proposed in this Bill that the same summary jurisdiction which exists under the Small Debt Acts should be extended to £50; but it was also proposed that there should be still an appeal to the Sheriff from the Sheriff Substitute in cases where debt was between £12 and £25; and with regard to cases in which the claim was over £25, there should be an appeal to the Court of Session. With regard to appeals from the decision of the Sheriff Substitute to the Sheriff, it was provided by the Bill that there should be no appeal unless either of the parties, before any evidence has been taken, shall make requisition that a note of the evidence be taken. He believed that the extension of jurisdiction would not only be extremely satisfactory to the classes of Scotch people interested, but that the expenses also of recovering small debts would thereby be considerably diminished. He was told that obtaining a decree, in absence of a defence, costs under the present system 40 s.; whereas, under the provisions of the present Bill, should it become law, it will be obtained for a debt of £20, at the cost of 5s., if no law agent should be employed, and an additional 5s. should the services of an agent be retained; and 10 s. for a debt between £25 and £50. It was proposed that this extended jurisdiction should not be compulsory, and that if a Sheriff, before whom a claim might be brought, should think that the case was not one which ought to be dealt with in a summary manner, then he would have power to remit the case to his ordinary jurisdiction, as though this Bill had not become law. There were

  1701
  other details of a technical character; but he need not trespass on their time by discussing them, especially as there was ample evidence before their Lordships of the existence of a very general, almost unanimous, desire in Scotland in favour of the measure.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.

  (NO. 38.) COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he desired some information with regard to a collateral subject—the Imperial guarantee of the loan for constructing the Intercolonial Railway.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that a Resolution on the subject would be laid before the House of Commons within a week, and it was proposed to defer the progress of the present Bill until the discussion had taken place on that Resolution.
  LORD REDESDALEasked whether the guarantee was to be permanent or for a term of years?
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that he must defer his answer to these questions of detail until a Bill founded on the Resolution should have been laid on the table of the other House.
  Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.