Sitting of 16 June 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Metropolitan Commons Act (1866) Amendment * [77], nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered-—First Reading—Debts of Deceased Persons* [165]; Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation * [166].
First Reading—Parochial Schools (Scotland)* [164].
Second Reading — Seeds Adulteration [40]; Sunday and Ragged Schools [67]; Special Bills* [162].
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (No. 2)* [158].
Withdrawn—Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) [39]; Corporation of London * [40].

THE LORD'S DAY SOCIETY AND THE PETITION FORGERIES.
  EXPLANATION.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he begged to ask leave to make an explanation with respect to a statement made the other day by the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. W. H. Gregory), that the two persons who had sworn an information that they had been engaged in forging signatures to the Petition in favour of opening Museums on Sundays had subsequently been taken into the employment of the Lord's Day Society. The hon. Gentleman had been misinformed on the subject. The Society had never employed these men, and it would have been highly improper had they done so.
SEEDS ADULTERATION BILL.
(Mr. Welby, Mr. Brand, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Read.)
SEEDS ADULTERATION BILL.

  [BILL 49.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  MR. WELBY: Sir, in moving the second reading of this Bill I fear I must trespass on the patience of the House for some short time, as the subject is one necessarily not familiar to many Members; but I will endeavour to confine myself strictly to showing the existence and extent of the evils against which the Bill is directed, the necessity for legislation, and the reasons why I think the Bill I propose will be effectual. In the remarks I am about to offer it will be, I fear, necessary for me to make statements reflecting seriously on the probity of seedsmen as a class; but I wish to guard myself at the outset from being supposed to imply that there are no honourable exceptions, no men who do and will supply their customers with a pure and genuine article. On the contrary, the Bill owes its origin in a great measure to the desire felt among the principal members of the trade to see this practice formally put an end to, which they have found their own individual efforts unable to cope with. Al-

  1917
  though, as I have said, this subject may not be a very familiar one, I am sure I need not point out at any length the importance to the farmer of having pure and vigorous seed to put into his land. On all arable farms a large proportion, and on many half of the whole produce of the farm depends on the seed and root crops, especially turnips, clover, &c. These are the eases in which the farmer is most extensively defrauded, and they are precisely those in which he is most deficient in the knowledge necessary to protect himself. In wheat, barley, oats. &c., his constant habit of handling at all stages of growth, and comparing samples, render him as good a judge as any professional expert. But in the smaller seeds, which he is seldom able to grow for himself, and where there is infinite variety with very close resemblance, he is almost entirely at the mercy of his seedsman; and this is true of the small farmers even more than of the large farmers. The latter has the means and opportunity generally of going to some seedsman of established reputation, but the little man is obliged to go probably to some small retailer in his immediate neighbourhood—perhaps the only man who will give him credit; and he looks to him very often, not, perhaps, exactly as his "guide, philosopher, and friend." but as a guarantee that the seed sold him is pure, and as an adviser as to what sorts of seed are best suited to the climate and soil of his farm. Now, Sir, the House may take it as an established fact that all well-grown, well-preserved new seeds ought to be capable of germinating to the extent of at least 90 per cent. It is also, I am sorry to say, a fact that of the seeds sold to the farmer— especially turnip seed—as a rule not more than 60 or 70 per cent is capable of germinating, and frequently not nearly so much; in other words, at least one-third of them are rubbish. This part of the subject was carefully tested about ton years ago by Professor Buckman, in a series of experiments, the result of which was that of ten picked samples of turnip seed, 92 per cent came up, 8 per cent failed; of ten market samples, said to be sold just as they were received from the wholesale dealer, 68 per cent came up, 32 per cent failed; of eight market samples of swede turnips, 24·S per cent failed; of twenty samples of common and swede turnips, obtained
  1918
  direct from wholesale dealers, 70·2 per cent came up, 29·8 per cent failed. Within the last few months a sub-committee of the Royal Horticultural Society instituted a further series of experiments, the results of which curiously corroborate those of Professor Buckman. They procured samples from nearly all the wholesale dealers in London, and they found that of white turnip seed, on an average, 74 per cent came up and 26 failed; of yellow turnip seed 66⅔ came up, while 33⅓, or exactly one-third of the whole failed; while of other sorts of less. Though still of great importance, of cauliflower or brocoli, only 51 per cent, or little more than half, came up; and of carrots—which, however, are rather an exceptional crop—actually less than 40 per cent germinated, showing that 60 per cent, or three-fifths, was valueless. So I think I am warranted in my statement—that of the seed sold to the farmer at least one-third is rubbish, which never comes up at all; and. if any further proof of this were needed I might adduce the fact that where a farmer does grow his own seed he uses fully one-third less on his land than he would of bought seed. This, then, is one branch of my subject; one great, complaint against the seedsmen, that of the see sold by them a large proportion has in it no vitality at all. The other is that of that which has vitality a great deal is not what it is represented to be, but is the seed of inferior species, frequently spurious sorts and mere weeds, which either naturally bears—or by artificial means has been made to bear—so close a resemblance to the genuine as to be undistinguishable by the ordinary purchaser. Now, Sir, I may say at once that with the admixture of seeds inferior, indeed, but bearing a natural resemblance to that with which they are mixed, this Bill does not in any way profess to deal. I am quite aware of the extent of this evil; I know, for instance, that sainfoin is adulterated with the seed of a strong rank-growing weed called burnet to such an extent that by the third year this has completely choked out the sainfoin, and not more than 5 per cent of sainfoin is left. I. know that in a bushel of clover seeds the weed seeds are frequently to be counted by the 1,000,000, and the weed plants which they produce in an acre by the 100,000. I know that plantain seed is

  1919
  unblushingly largely mixed with clover and sold at full price, though worth at most only half. But these are cases which I hold it is impossible to touch by legislation. You cannot draw the line between fraud and carelessness, or even between intentional adulteration and unavoidable impurities, and the purchaser must look out for himself. So, too, I may say that I do not propose to deal with seeds which have lost their vitality simply by being kept too long, although I have been very strongly urged to do so, and some parties, whose authority I cannot but respect, think that unless they are included the Bill will be virtually inoperative. I know the injury done in this way is enormous: the temptation to the fraud lies in the uncertainty of and precarious nature of the crop of most seeds, and the profit which is consequently to be obtained by buying cheap in a good year when there is a glut, and holding over to sell dear in a year when there is a scarcity, either alone or mixed with new seed. I should be very glad indeed if I could meet this evil, but I do not think it is possible, for the germinating power continues in different sorts of seeds for very different periods of time, and varies in the same sorts tinder different circumstances. Sometimes old seed is even better than new. All seeds from which oil may be extracted preserve their vitality for a number of years, if well harvested and stored in a dry warehouse, and well-known instances of mummy wheat which has germinated after being laid by for thousands of years will readily occur to the minds of hon. Members. So, great as I know these evils to be, I fear I must leave them alone; indirectly I do, to some extent, hope to reach them; for, if I can prevent the use of killed seed less seed will be stored, and the actual supply of old dead seed will not be enough to do much harm, besides which it generally betrays its presence by its appearance. This Bill is directed solely towards the suppression of practices which, beyond all contradiction and all possibility of mistake, constitute wilful, intentional, and deliberate fraud; and there are— first, the killing of spurious worthless seeds, on the principle that "dead men tell no tales," in order to mix them with and increase the bulk of parcels of valuable seeds, to which they bear a natural
  1920
  resemblance; secondly, the doctoring, without much regard to the power of germination, of inferior seeds, by colouring, sulphur smoking, &c, so as to give them the appearance of, and mixing them with, and selling them at the price of, seeds of a superior quality. Now, Sir, through the investigations to which. I have before alluded, it has become notorious that these manipulations have been for many years past a regular and distinct branch of the seed trade. Some six or eight, manufactories, I believe, exist solely for the purpose of doctoring and killing these seeds and supplying them to the seedsmen, among whom the dead seed is perfectly well-known and recognized under the name of "trio" or 000. This, I believe, is scarcely denied by the trade; but that I may not be suspected of making accusations which I cannot substantiate, I will quote a letter published in Professor Buckman's Sci ence and Practice of Farm Cultivation, which he says was addressed to a most respectable firm—
  "Southampton, April 27, 1860.
  "Gentlemen,— Being in possession of a new and improved method of killing seed without the use of any chemicals, so that the seed when in a 000 stale, has not that unpleasant smell it has when killed by the old method, and does not look perished if it be crushed, A man, by the new process, may kill ten or twelve quarters per day, and the apparatus is so constructed that it is impossible for a single seed to leave it alive; and one great advantage is that if you want a. sack of 000 seed in a hurry, you may kill a sack of rape or turnip, or any seed, and have it fit for use in an hour. Seed, in the process of killing, increases in measure and weight, and when you send it out to be killed of course the seed-killer keeps the extra weight and measure. If you think it worth your attention I will send you a small working model, so that you may kill a few pounds of kale or canllflower, or any small seeds, in a few minutes, and instructions for making a large one, on receipt of a post office order for £2—Yours truly,
  "—."
  To this Messrs. Sutton added that they had called from curiosity at the address given, and ascertained that "it was no hoax, but were assured by the inventor that he had supplied several tradesmen with the apparatus, and was formerly in the seed trade himself." Professor Buck man afterwards tried to procure some 000 seed. I was told by a most respectable London firm that "although perfectly well-known, I understood, in the trade they do not care to have it known beyond. Our asking for a small quantity will be sure to lead to the

  1921
  question, What do we want it for? We could obtain a large quantity without hesitation." If any further proof is wanted, I might refer to letters which appeared in the Gardener's Chronicle last November, and in The Times on the 13th of March last, written by one of the original promoters of this Bill—himself a seedsman—who there publicly charges the trade with being guilty of these practices, and challenges them to deny it, which they have scarcely attempted to do. The utmost they have ventured to say is that everybody can have genuine seeds who is willing to pay for them: thus apparently presuming that the public know that adulterated seeds are the rule, and that genuine seeds must be specially asked for. These frauds prevail extensively in all sorts of root-crops, cauliflowers, cabbages, &c., &c. but chiefly in the most important ones of turnip and clover seed. Large quantities of German or Indian rubsen or rape-seed, and inferior samples of English rape, are lulled by steaming and kiln-drying for mixing with English turnip seed, the rape being worth about 50 s. a quarter, the turnip seed £10. Trefoil, worth 16 s. per cwt, is killed for mixing with red clover—worth 80 s. to 90 s. per cwt—and cow grass, and died pale yellow or purple to suit: the sample for which it is intended. Cheap brown white clover seed is prepared with sulphur, which gives it a bright straw-colour resembling that of the finest quality with which it is mixed; the same with alsyke, brocoli, cauliflower, &c., which are adulterated with killed turnip or rape seed often not one-twentieth of the value. It has been estimated that 40,000 to 50,000 bushels of prepared seed are annually used for mixing with turnip seed, and many hundred tons of spurious clover seed. What the loss to the country involved by this may be I cannot pretend to calculate. I think I have now established the existence and enormity of these frauds, and I have to deal with the question—Why is legislation necessary? Why cannot the seedsmen themselves act honestly by their customers, and at once put an end to these malpractices? I fear that, as one of the public, in whose interest alone I have taken up this Bill. I can only reply—they do not; and, judging from experience, until they are compelled by law the majority of them will not. That
  1922
  there are some honourable exceptions I have already stated; that among all the more respectable members of the trade there exists a strong desire to put an end to these frauds I firmly believe, but with too many of them circumstances are stronger than their inclinations; they toll you that these frauds are the "traditional custom of the trade," that the present generation of seedsmen have not originated them, but have "succeeded to them as a fatal heritage"—a burden which they cannot cast off. They think, and perhaps with some reason, that customers are not yet sufficiently enlightened to know that it is cheapest in the end to give a good price for a good article, and they fear that if they restrict themselves to soiling pure seed at a necessarily high price, they will at once be under-sold by more unscrupulous men, and that the only result will be to ruin their own businesses without advantage to the public. They contend that "any effort for good must not be limited to the voluntary abstinence of individuals, but must be compulsory and of universal application;" and to prove the sincerity of their desire that such an effort should be made, they warmly promote this Bill. This, then, Sir, is my case for the Bill; I have established the existence of a great evil, beyond the power of individuals to cope with, and for which the remedy now provided by law—a civil action—is so tedious and expensive that practically it is seldom resorted to. It only remains for me to show why I think the remedy I propose —summary conviction—will be effectual, and perhaps the strongest argument I can use will be to read a circular lately addressed to the various seed-houses by one of the individuals whose business consists in manipulating seed for them. His speciality, I am informed, is killing rubsen seed —
  "Gentlemen,—In consequence of the Bill now before Parliament for the suppression of my trade, and the agitation that has been going on for the last eighteen months, I am compelled to solicit your sympathy and support in my behalf, as the passing of the above Act will be my total ruin, and Also a. heavy sacrifice in my machinery, &c., &c., part of which has recently been laid out to enable me to conduct my business more perfectly, the nature of which you are fully aware. Knowing this, and the number of years that my father and myself hare faithfully served and con-ducted any work you have put into our hands, I trust that you will lake this memorial into your kind consideration, and give it all the support

  1923
  which lays in your power. I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, "T. S."
  This is the opinion of one to whom the Bill comes home more nearly and vitally perhaps than anyone else, and I venture to think that this by itself is almost sufficient proof that it will he effectual. I do not believe there will be any great difficulty in carrying it out. The Royal Horticultural Society, it is time, say there are no means of knowing whether a seed has been killed or died a natural death; but I am told, on the contrary, that it is as easy for an experiment, by cutting the seed in two, as to see whether a potato has been cooked or not. At any rate, the wholesale dealers have ample means by their experience and technical knowledge, and by proof-rooms and proof-beds, of testing the quality of the seed which conies into their possesssion; so that if what they sell is adulterated it must be with their knowledge. If you can make them send out pure seed, the retailer as a rule will sell it exactly as he receives it; or, if he is inclined to cheat, he will not find it easy to obtain doctored seed. The British manipulator will have been put an end to; it will be unsafe to keep in stock large quantities of foreign 000; and the expense of procuring it in small parcels, or of sending seed to be mixed abroad, will destroy the profit; moreover, there is a difficulty in mixing small quantities —if not done artistically the fraud is sure to be detected. That my remedy is perfect I do not pretend; but I believe it will be effectual as far as it goes; and that it will not do more than it professes to do. The proviso in the 6th clause is. I think, wide enough to protect all legitimate operations of trade, but if not I shall be glad to amend it with that view, and the same with regard to the other clauses. I now ask the House with some confidence to assist me in the suppression of a system of rascality which has this aggravation above ordinary frauds, that it is impossible to discover the full effect of the cheat till the mischief is irretrievably wrought: and to assent to the second reading of a Bill which seeks to encourage the honest and deter the dishonest trader, to protect the ignorant or unwary customer, and ultimately to increase the provision of food for the community at large.
  MR. COLLINS, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the House must
  1924
  feel indebted to the hon. Member for South Lincolnshire (Mr. Welby) for having introduced the Bill, and he hoped the Government would allow it to be read a second time. But, inasmuch as the subject was surrounded with very great difficulties, and was entirely new to Parliament, he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Welby) would consent to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee, that the House might be informed as to the facts of the case. He understood that kiln-dried seed was used for food. No doubt the mixing of such seed with seed that was to be sown should be prohibited; but it might be desirable, or, at all events, not improper, that seed should be dried for the purpose of being used as food; and there might be other cases in which processes, illegitimate if used for fraud, would be perfectly legitimate if designed and executed for an innocent purpose. A Select Committee would be able to furnish the House with evidence upon such points, and prevent Parliamentary condemnation of perfectly legitimate processes.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Welly.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was impossible to deny that the evils the hon. Member (Mr. Welby) hoped to put an end to by this Bill were of a very serious character. It was difficult to say how the custom of mixing seed arose; probably it commenced by the not altogether reprehensible practice of mixing old with new seed to equalize the prices, which the fraudulent had followed up by adulterating genuine seed with killed seed. If, as was said, there were manufactories used only for the purpose of preparing such seed, he thought that the matter was one that the House might be called upon to legislate on. But he must take some exception to the form of the Bill. The 3rd clause made it illegal to mix seeds, and the 4th clause said that it should be illegal to have possession of such seeds for sale. These were very general provisions. No doubt the 6th clause contained a number of exemptions from the operation of the previous clauses, but the effect of all the clauses was to throw the onus of proof of exemption upon the accused. He thought the Bill was not in a shape in which it would be safe for the House to

  1925
  pass it, and, therefore, he hoped that it would be referred to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence upon the subject, in order that the facts might be substantiated before legislation. He would observe that the Horticultural Society had expressed the opinion that the public was often deceived by the practice, arising from ignorance as often as from dishonesty—of keeping seeds until their germinating power was destroyed by age—and the same society passed a minute, only yesterday, approving the principle of the Bill; but remarking that it did not go far enough, because it did not take sufficient precautions against the sale of seeds which had died a natural death. The true cause of all this fraud was the gradual lowering of the standard of seeds, and the remedy was to be found in some process of raising the standard, as had been done by the Royal Highland Agricultural Society with respect to manures. This society had adopted the practice of purchasing samples of manures from different vendors, testing the quality and publishing the results. He recommended some similar process to cheek the adulteration of seed in preference to the adoption of criminal proceedings, the expediency of which he doubted, especially as they had not proved satisfactory in dealing with the adulteration of food. Very few prosecutions were carried on under the Acts for the suppression of adulterating food, and there was a Bill now before the House for instituting a system of State inspection. The discussions which had arisen on this subject would be useful in considering this Bill; but, as it was most desirable the House should have full evidence before it as to the facts complained of, he hoped the hon. Member would consent to the Bill going before a Select Committee.
  MR. READsaid, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time and proceeded with by the House, instead of being sent to a Select Committee. The facts wore notorious among those interested in the seed trade, and amounted to a system of unmitigated rascality. To send the Bill to a Select Committee would be to shelve it for the Session. People could not be made honest by Act of Parliament; but, he would observe, that the evil they sought to put a stop to was that hundreds of quarters of seeds were annually killed in large manufactories
  1926
  put up for the purpose, and this they could easily stop. He would rather see coiners of false money at large than permit this great wrong to continue; because, in the case of a counterfeit coin, the loss was apparent and definite, but in the case of seed the loss was not discovered until the farmer found he had no crop; besides this immediate loss the injury was continued for several years with more or less effect. The smaller farmers were especially open to this fraud, because a spirit of false economy had led them to give low prices and deal with small traders, who knew no more about seed than he did about law. Much had been said about old seeds, but it was a fact that seeds, properly kept, retained their germinating powers for years; he, at present, had a crop of turnips coming up well from seeds seven years old; and if the House wished to apply the test of age to seeds it would have to go back to the time of the Pharoahs. There was a marked difference between the case of adulterating seeds and other things, feeding stuffs, for instance. The farmer knew his oilcake was not all linseed, but adulterated with bran; that his nitrate of soda was mixed with salt, and his ground bones with oyster shells; but little harm resulted beyond that of short measure. The ease of adulterated seed was different; it might even go far to ruin a small man. With reference to the proceedings of the Royal Highland Agricultural Society in their detection of adulterated manures, he observed that they stopped short at an important point, and omitted to publish the names of those firms selling the spurious article. He believed no thorough remedy would be obtained until we had a public prosecutor, but in the meantime he hoped the Government would assist the passage of this Bill, and in the name of the farmers he demanded it as a right.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he wished to give his hearty support to the Bill. He concurred with the hon. Member for Southeast Norfolk (Mr. Read) that it ought to be passed at once without any reference to a Select Committee. The facts of adulteration were patent; and could not be called in question. The "innocent purposes" alluded to by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had been provided for in the 6th section, and he could not conceive what facts the hon. Member

  1927
  wanted the Committee to substantiate, because this work would be done by the courts of justice in every case that came before them. The Committee of the Whole House were able to do anything that was requisite to make the Bill more efficient, and there ought to be no delay in putting an end to these frauds on the poor farmer.
  MR. H. B. W. BRANDsaid, the proper time for deciding whether the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee was after it had been read a second time; but he would observe upon this point that, although it would be tantamount to throwing the Bill out to send it before a Select Committee with instructions to take evidence as to facts, yet to send it to a Select Committee only for the purpose of amendment would be to facilitate its passage. He recommended the hon. Member in charge of the measure (Mr. Welby) to do his best to meet the objections raised by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) before the next stage; if this were done the Bill might proceed; if not, it would then be open to the Secretary to the Board of Trade to raise the question of sending the Bill to a Select Committee-— a necessity, however, which he hoped the House would be spared.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was scarcely possible to exaggerate the evil of the system which the Bill sought to put an end to, either in its nature or the extent to which it prevailed. But he had great doubts whether the Bill provided an effectual remedy. There were difficulties under the present law, in proving the offence, and it would not be easier to secure a conviction under a penal statute than in a civil action. Would it be easy to prove whether seed that had lost its vitality had been heated purposely by a kiln, or naturally, in the rick, or. in the case of foreign seed, in the ship which brought it here. He should not however, oppose the second reading, but he hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Welby) would do his best to meet the difficulties which he (Mr. Henley; had pointed out; and he would be most happy to afford, every assistance in his power to make the Bill efficacious. He feared, however, it would never have much practical effect, and that it might prove a delusion, and even give greater impunity than at present to the rogues who sold bad seed.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he must offer his thanks to the hon. Member (Mr. Welby) for introducing the Bill, in which the small occupiers of Ireland were especially interested, though many of them were ignorant of the existence of the evil it sought to remedy On this account he would prefer a Select Committee to take evidence on the subject with a view to circulate the information throughout the country, The objection that criminal prosecutions would not be undertaken under this Bill would not hold good as regards Ireland; be-cause there the Crown prosecutor would undertake them, and for this reason the Irish farmers would be better protected by a penal than a civil remedy. He would counsel delay rather than immature legislation.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, that the North of Ireland was more interested in the measure even than other parts of the country, because of the great care necessary in the preparation of the flax seed. In Ireland the large landlords who had the interest of their tenants at heart usually purchased largo quantities of good seed, which they distributed among their tenants, and in almost every instance the money was repaid with the greatest alacrity, and the practice was regarded as the greatest benefit. The small farmers, however, had to depend upon the tradesmen of the neighbouring towns, and anything more uncertain than the quality of the seed which they sold it would be impossible to mention. Although the Bill might not prevent the adulteration of seeds or misrepresentations as to the places where seeds were grown, he thought that if it were amended in Committee it might be made a good measure, and the hon. Members who had introduced it were entitled to the thanks of the community.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, they had some experience which might throw light on this question in connection with the Adulteration of Food Act, which they all knew had proved a dead letter. If the farmers of England chose to combine in order to purchase seeds they had the remedy in their own hands. There was no excuse for adulteration on the ground of small profits, because the profit made by the retailer on the wholesale price was over 30 per cent, and it was known from experiment that the average adul-

  1929
  teration was about 50. The question was a serious one in this respect, that the tendency of adulteration was to drag down the holiest to the level of the dishonest dealer. He believed that there was in the seed trade a real and earnest desire among respectable houses to put down this practice, and he had no doubt they would do their utmost to make the Bill work successfully: but he had the greatest possible doubt whether, like the Adulteration of Food Act., it would not prow a failure. Then it was a question whether the publication of the analysis with the name of the vender might not render the parties who published it open to a charge of libel. Even the publication of an analysis of the adulterated article would be of no use unless side by side with it, there was also published another analysis showing what the genuine article should be composed of. The publication of an analysis ought to be made a privileged publication. When strong language was used between a dealer and a farmer who found himself taken in, the seedsman might threaten an action for libel, and the farmer was generally so much afraid of law that he would not go further. Much good, however, might be done by means of societies like the Royal Horticultural. Though he should vote for the second reading he was of opinion that unless the greatest care was taken the measure would prove a dead letter.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, the members of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce were unanimously in favour of legislation on this subject. The seedsmen of Belfast also anxiously desired that a Bill should be passed upon it. He hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading, and that the Bill would not be shelved.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I did not hear the observations of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Shaw Lefevre); but if any Member of the House gathered from them, which I think he could not, that the Department with which he and I are connected is opposed to the second reading of this Bill, he made a great mistake, because there can be no doubt, I think—I can have no doubt, from the statement;; made to me by two very important deputations—that there is a grievance of considerable magnitude in connection with this question, and it would very ill
  1930
  become me to ask the House of Commons not to deal with this grievance in a manner in which it is accustomed to deal with other evils and other grievances which exist in the country. The real question, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth. (Mr. Morrison), is whether this Bill would be of great use. If it can be shown that it would be of great use, by all means pass it; but, as this is a new question, I think it is at least desirable that the House should make some inquiry to ascertain the extent of the grievance, the mode in which it arises, and whether the Bill as it now stands, or as it may be altered, or whether any Bill, can be a sufficient remedy for the evil which is complained of. The House must bear in mind that the Bill does not refer at all to what the Royal Horticultural Society describes as a great portion of the evil. It refers only to those seeds that are intentionally killed for the purpose of adulteration and deception. It does not deal with the keeping of seed until it becomes old and has lost its germinating power. Now, the Royal Horticultural Society, in their Report, say that that is the main portion of the grievance, and yet that is what the Bill entirely ignores. Let the House bear in mind what are the difficulties of this question. The hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. Welby) and the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) must know a great deal more about it than I know, for what I know has been gathered chiefly from the deputations I have seen on this subject; but they tell me, and it is quite clear, that the seed of a certain harvest is very much better than that of another harvest—very much better in one farm than in another farm; in fact, that it varies from causes which we not only cannot control, but which we cannot in the smallest degree comprehend; that if seed is too long kept it becomes of no value, and for purposes of adulteration it is as injurious as seed that is actually killed. It is impossible, in many cases, to say whether the seed has died naturally or has been killed by some artificial process. Seeds in different seasons will be of different colours, and it is not always possible to tell whether the seed has been coloured by the dealer for the purpose of deception, or whether it has been coloured by the circumstances of the

  1931
  harvest. When there is no crop, or a bad crop, from seed which a farmer has put into the ground, it is no longer in his possession, and it is impossible for him to tell whether the failure is owing to some peculiarity in the soil or of the season. I will undertake to say that the most honest seedsman in England, and, I think, the most honest fanner, if we had him here, would admit that he might put seed from the same sack into two different fields, not more than a quarter of a mile apart, and yet the result in in one held might, from causes which cannot be explained, be, in many cases, double, and often more than double that in the other field. I mention these things to show that this is not a simple question, but one of the most complicated kind, which the learned men of the Horticultural Society themselves are just as much puzzled about as I who am most unlearned on the matter may be expected to be. The sub-committee of the Horticultural Society, at the close of their Report, explain a plan by which fanners can easily, if they like, ascertain before seed is put into the ground whether the seed be good seed or not. They say they have considered the various modes of testing seeds which are known to them, and that which they feel inclined to recommend as, on the whole, the easiest, cleanliest, least troublesome, and most likely to be acceptable to the general public, is the placing of the seeds between folds of moist flannel, and keeping them in the temperature of a sitting room or kitchen for a few days. It may not answer for all seeds, but it answers perfectly for most kinds, and any seed that gives a good return tinder it may be depended on as certain not to give a worse result when actually sown. They say an idea of its efficiency may be gathered from a trial of it made by one of the committee, upon 100 seeds of one of (he sorts whoso average of good seed had in previous trials been found to be seventy-live. The method recommended gave twenty-five seeds germinating on the third day, twenty-three on the fourth, sixteen on the fifth, nine on the sixth, and three on the seventh—total, seventy-six. That is to say, 100 seeds, producing seventy-five fruitful seeds in the earth under the most careful circumstances, had produced seventy-six fruitful seeds when tried between these layers of moist flannel. The Council
  1932
  recommend that this plan should be made as widely known, and its practice be as strongly inculcated, as possible. Now, although that is quite true, and although it may be important that all farmers should know it, and I have read it here that it might be more extensively known, still it does not does not follow that if Parliament can legislate so as to put an end to this evil. Parliament should not do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), Mho, besides being a statesman of great authority in this House, is somehow or other, I do not know whether from education or from a natural qualification, very much of a lawyer. [Laughter.] I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am saying what is unfair to him in saying that, for I often wish myself that I were a lawyer; it would add to one's power of discussing many questions in this House — the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House some difficulties of this Bill. He is of opinion—and I think all persons connected with trade who have considered the matter calmly are of opinion—that the Bill as it stands—and I am not sure it would not be true of any Bill—will be a very great embarrassment in trade. I have seen, this morning, one of the most extensive seedsmen in the kingdom, and I believe he is one of the most honourable. He says the evils which are complained of are greatly diminishing, and that, with regard to some particular branches of the trade, they may be said altogether to have become extinct; and he feels that the greater intelligence of farmers, and the greater necessity they feel of being careful on this matter, will of itself tend greatly to diminish or remove the evil altogether, and that legislation is not necessary. He says that whatever good legislation on this subject might do. it would be accompanied with this great evil—it would put some thousands of persons in peril of litigation, from which they are now to a considerable degree exempt—litigation which would be not only wholly unsatisfactory to the dishonest, but most unsatisfactory and embarrassing to the honest tradesman. One gentleman who has written to me, but asks me not to mention his name, says that he sued a farmer for 19 s., a debt of three years' standing. The farmer retaliated by bringing an

  1933
  action against him, charging him with having sold to him fourteeen pennyworth of Swedish turnip seed, being 2 lbs. in weight, which he was to sow in an acre and a-half of ground. The farmer accused him of selling seed that was not honest. [An hon. MEMBER: Perhaps he did not sow enough.] The gentleman tells me that in defending that action he had occasion to spend £166; that the farmer claimed for damages £100. which would be more than enough to buy the fee simple of the acre and a-half in which he sowed the 2 lbs. of seed; and a Dorsetshire jury gave a verdict for £12. The 3rd clause of the Bill makes it penal to destroy or kill seed, or to cause seed to be destroyed or killed by any process, with a view to dishonest practices. But even with regard to that clause, how could it be carried out? One of the deputations that waited on me told me they believed there was one place in London in which not less than 1,000 tons of seed had been killed in a year. [An hon. MEMBER: Quarters.] I will take quarters, if you like. They told me there are many places in which seeds are killed, Others tell me that is a gross exaggeration, and that probably there is only one known place in London where this is done, and that generally the practice is very much dying out. But how are you to manage to carry out this clause unless you appoint inspectors? The Bill does not propose to appoint inspectors. And if you appointed inspectors you would have one-half of the population inspecting the other half. If the Bill appointed inspectors there would be no end of patronage for my right hon. Friend at the Home Office. But when you come to Clause 4, there appears the technical objection mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). It proposes to enact that anyone "knowingly" doing the things prohibited by the Bill shall be subject to a penalty; but how are you to prove that the seed dealers throughout the country have "knowingly" done this and that? This word "knowingly" is very like "corruptly" in the Corrupt Practices Act, which vitiated the entire Bill. The Bill does not apply to seed that comes from the Continent; and yet one-half of the seed sown in this country may come from abroad It is impossible in many cases to distinguish what is
  1934
  good seed and what is bad—what is bad through the act of man, or what is bad owing to the climate or the harvest. The question is. what ought the House to do? I am bound to admit there is considerable mischief existing. The deputation of the Horticultural Society, and a large deputation that attended at the Board of Trade, slated facts which it would be absurd in me to deny with so little knowledge as I have of the matter. At the same time there are most honourable seedsmen who are opposed to this legislation. This very day I have received a letter from the oldest firm of seedsmen in London, that is the firm of Minier, Nash, and Nash, in the Strand. Nobody will say that they are not a most respectable house. They have been in the same premises for 200 years. They say—
  "It is well known that seeds often fail in growth from causes beyond the merchant's control. One man will get a good crop, and another almost a failure, from the same bulk of seed. It would, therefore, be a most intolerable nuisance that a party could go before a magistrate and make a charge that we had sold him adulterated seed, leaving us to make out our case to the contrary, which would be an utter impossibility, seeing that the seed might have gone through a dozen hands from the time it left the grower in Germany or elsewhere."
  I mention this to show that this is not a question to be dealt with suddenly by two or three clauses in a Bill which have not been fully considered. Therefore, as it is undesirable that we should pass a law that would have no effect, and would be a delusion to those for whom it was supposed to be a benefit, I think it is well that after the Bill has passed a second reading it should be referred to a Committee. This, fortunately, is not a question of party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Brand), if he were a Member of that Committee, would see that everything fair was done with regard to this matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with agriculture would be disposed to consider the subject fairly in that Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire could give them valuable assistance. The hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) said he did not consider there would be much harm in having the Bill considered, though it might put off legislation to next year. Well, the delay to

  1935
  next year is no great delay. The discussion of the subject will of itself do some good, but we do not want to delay legislation for a month, or a week. We are anxious—I am very anxious—that we should not do anything in legislation which is not carefully considered, and full of effect, as far as good effect is concerned. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member (Mr. Welby) Mill have his Bill read a second time, and agree to have it sent to a Select Committee. I do not wish that in that Committee every person should be examined who wants to be heard, or that we should make a large blue book out of the evidence: but there are many important questions upon which we can have evidence, and there are some witnesses in the trade who would have a right to be heard in that Committee in answer to some points raised in the discussion here to-day. If the hon. Member agrees to that. I will give my consent to the second reading: and I congratulate the House most heartily that there is a fair prospect of something being done to put an end to a grievance which is a great loss to the farmers, and very discreditable to a large branch of trade.
  MR. HUN, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, tendered his thanks to his hon. Friend (Mr. Welby) for having introduced this measure, and he was sure the ability he had shown in stating the case would justify the confidence which they felt in having it in his hands. He was glad, notwithstanding the strong speech which the President of the Board of Trade had made against the Bill, that he was prepared to support the second reading; and if the ability which the right hon. Gentleman had shown in discussing the measure were applied to improving it. he had no doubt that they might pass the Bill this Session without any complaint on the part of those affected by it. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman had said that the principal function of the post which he enjoyed was to give advice, which nobody followed. But in this case the right hon. Gentleman might give advice with a bettor result, and turn his Department to some practical use. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was unlearned in the subject; but all must admit that he had shown considerable aptitude in acquiring knowledge upon it.
  1936
  The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the different circumstances which might affect the reproductive character of seeds, and pointed out the difficulties which might arise if all persons who sold seeds which did not germinate were liable to a criminal process. But this Bill did not profess to deal with seeds the failure of which in productiveness arose from circumstances over which the vendors had no control. The Bill only dealt with seeds "knowingly" destroyed or coloured, and therefore the objections of the right hon. Gentleman, though exceedingly plausible, did not really apply to the particular provisions of the Bill. His hon. Friend himself in introducing the Bill admitted that the evil was one the greater part of which no legislation could touch; but this Bill professed to deal with those cases which legislation could touch—namely, the fraudulent adulteration of seeds. He did not know where the establishments were situated which killed and coloured seeds, but he thought there must be one at Boston; because his hon. Friend who represented that borough (Mr. Collins) was so exceedingly anxious that the measure should not go forward this Session, He had no doubt that under the 3rd clause there would be very little difficulty in locking up the establishments set up for carrying on this fraudulent trade. As to the cost of prosecutions, it was not proposed that cases should go before a jury, but that they should be decided by two ordinary magistrates, or one stipendiary magistrate. He hoped that the President; of the Board of Trade would assist his hon. Friend in putting the Bill in such a shape as that the Mouse could accept it even though it might be afterwards referred to a Select Committee. Where it was a question of agricultural seeds which affected the whole community, because it affected the price of the food of the whole population, the President of the Board of Trade might surely take it upon himself to give every assistance to his hon. Friend.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he was aware of the great difficulties with which this question was surrounded, and he had often wondered, in walking through one of those magnificent displays of seeds seen in agricultural exhibitions that the practice of adulteration did not prevail to a much greater extent than was actually the case. Any one who

  1937
  walked down through the long rows of bags of various kinds of seed displayed in these exhibitions must have an extremely practised eye to be able to distinguish one from another. But there was no doubt that a grievance existed of a most cruel and abominable character, which that House ought to do all it could to put an end to. He was glad that no opposition was offered by the Government to the second reading of the Bill; but the question was really how to give effect to it; and. if his right hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt; had not already made the suggestion, he should have ventured to recommend that the Board of Trade should take counsel with the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Welby), and see whether or no any other machinery could be devised for giving practical effect to the measure, without at the same time exciting unnecessary litigation and throwing the whole trade into confusion. He was sure that any one who took the trouble to read the 4th and 5th clauses would see that they were absolutely unwork-able as they stood. In the first place there was the word "knowingly." which would give rise to the greatest difficulty; and then there was no limitation laid clown as to time, whether it was within a week or three months after the seed was bought, or whether the buyer had to wait until the harvest was over before he could bring his action. It was easy to see that under these clauses as they stood the greatest injustice might be perpetrated on a most honourable seedsman, who might have in his possession seeds imported from abroad which he could not know to be adulterated without a most careful analysis, for which he might have to provide a very costly machinery. While, there- fore, the House was bound to afford every reasonable protection to those who could not protect themselves, on the other hand it was also bound to take care that that Bill or any Bill was not made the means of vexatious litigation and unjust pressure upon a class of persons, many of whom he knew to be highly respectable tradesmen, and to be strongly in favour of the Bill. It was therefore a simple practical question which the Government had to determine —whether they should be able between the second reading and the tune for
  1938
  going into Committee to frame such clauses as might render the Bill operative before sending it to a Select Committee.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he could not conceive a more wicked fraud than that of adulterating the seed on which the staff of life depended; but though he had every sympathy with the object the promoters had in view, he doubted if it could be accomplished by legislative enactment. For instance, the 3rd clause would have the effect of closing dishonest establishments for colouring seeds in England, but would have no effect on such manufactories abroad. He objected to the 4th and 5th clauses which, unless greatly modified, would improperly interfere with legitimate trade; and he believed the real remedy was to be found in greater care and caution on, the part of the farmers in making their purchases. He thought the promoters of the Bill Mould do wisely in accepting the offer of the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the Bill had been received favourably in Scotland, but it was considered to require Amendments.
  MR. WELBYsaid, he rejoiced to perceive that there existed so general a concurrence of opinion that some early legislation on the subject was desirable. He was not unwilling to admit that considerable modifications might be required in the measure in order to bring it into a working shape. That subject had been thoroughly ventilated for several months past, and as far as the facts relating to it were concerned, they were not denied; and it was scarcely necessary to take evidence in reference to them. If it should be deemed requisite he should not object to the Bill going before a Select Committee, provided the Committee were instructed to confine its attention to the re-casting of the clauses of the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' (METRO-POLIS) BILL.— [BILL 30.]
(Mr. Buxton, Mr. Thomas Hughes)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' (METRO-POLIS) BILL.— [BILL 30.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BUXTON, in moving the second reading of the first of two Bills on this subject which stood on the Notice Paper, the Municipal Corporation Metropolis Bill and the Corporations of London Bill said, the object of the two Bills that he hold in his hand was nothing less than this—their aim was to get rid of that state of almost anarchical confusion by which the administration of the metropolis was at present disgraced, and to bestow upon her 3,000,000 inhabitants a well-balanced, well-organized system of representative self-government. That might well be thought a somewhat herculean task, and with that fooling he had for some time shrunk from taking part in it; and it was only at the earnest and repeated request of those who had been making great sacrifices of labour, time, and money for many years in this cause that he had accepted the duty they wished to impose on him. It must be matter of great regret to those who were interested in that subject that it should have lost the services of Mr. John Stuart Mill as its leader; but, in truth, the time was ripe for a revolution of that kind in the government of the metropolis. Public opinion was rapidly maturing to it, and it mattered little how inadequate its advocates in Parliament might be; flint reform must, before long. be carried through. He had referred to Mr. Mill, and he should not be content to pass over in silence the services of his coadjutors, Mr. Ludlow and Mr. James Beal, who must not be confounded, as he sometimes was, with Mr. Beales of the Reform League. Mr. Beal had laboured most strenuously for many years at that undertaking, and if it was carried through, his fellow-citizens ought not to forget his disinterested and persevering exertions on their behalf. Now, he was well aware that no private Member could indulge the hope of carrying through such a revolution as mat with his own hand. All he could do was to submit to Parliament a scheme which certainly had been prepared with infinite, pains and care, in the earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government, who were, he knew, fully alive to the necessity of ac-
  1940
  tion upon that point, would take up the case themselves, and during the next Recess Mould examine carefully into the scheme, comparing it with the rival schemes which had been suggested by others, and then that, in the course of next Session, they would propose to Parliament whichever plan was found to be most likely to conduce to the welfare of the metropolis. He had spoken of rival proposals, and he thought he had better briefly, but he hoped candidly, describe some of those that were coin-petting for favour with the one that he had the honour to bring forward. One of the plans that had been propounded was that advocated by the Metropolitan Board of Works, who very naturally wished the vestries and so forth to remain as they were; that the boroughs should not be endowed with municipal functions, but that the powers of the Board of Works itself should be enlarged, so that it should become the supreme authority over all the affairs of the metropolis. There was one fatal disadvantage in that scheme—namely, that it took no account of the existence of the City Corporation, which would not consent to that supremacy of the Board of Works; whereas, the City had actually reported in favour of the first of his two Bills, and would merely seek to protect their interests with respect to the second. But even if that difficulty were got over, the suggestion of the Board of Works, though it might supply a strong government for London as a whole, would do nothing whatever to introduce order and good government into the chaos of conflicting jurisdictions in the several parts of London. Then came the proposal that emanated from the present Lord Fortescue, when Member for Marylebone. That noble Lord proposed a series of bodies governing the whole of the area, but each devoted to one great work, such as works, police, lighting, drainage, and improvements. That scheme was highly ingenious, but he need not discuss it now, as it was not pressed forward. Then there was the proposal made, he thought, by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who recommended that they should simply take the City as a nucleus, and then divide the rest of London into wards, which should elect their aldermen and councillors like the wards of the City proper, thus sim-

  1941
  ply adding then on as bees might add new cells to a honeycomb. No doubt there was an air of simplicity about that arrangement which was very attractive. In ancient times the City generally added one ward after another, and if that system of inclusion had not been stopped, by this lime the City would have absorbed the whole of London. It was clear, however, that there were fatal difficulties in the way of adopting the proposed arrangements. For example, if the new wards were of the same size as the old ones, there would be such a multitude of them, and, consequently, such a host of aldermen and common councillors that no building could, contain them. On the other hand, if the new wards were a great deal larger than the old ones, there would be great said well-founded dissatisfaction; if, for example, Westminster were only put on the same footing as one of the smaller wards in the City. Well, then, there was another proposal which found favour with the Committee over which his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) presided. The proposal of the Committee was, in fact, a revolutionary one. It altogether ignored the existence of the City Corporation, and started off as if they had a tabula rasa, with nothing already in occupation of the ground. He could not think that proposal was characterized by statesmanlike prudence. It would be very unwise of them to add so enormously to their practical difficulties, as they would if they attempted to sweep away a system so ancient, so venerable. so powerful as that. The Corporation of London was already engaged in the work of its own reformation; but it would be utterly unreasonable to make a reform of the City a necessary stepping-stone to the creation of a constitution for the metropolis, with which it had no necessary connection. And now he would endeavour to delineate the scheme which, in. his opinion, was a more practicable, a more conciliatory, and. at the same time, a bolder and move efficient one than any of those to which he had referred; the scheme, in fact, contained in these two Bills. The object being, as he had said before, to confer a complete system of representative self-government on the metropolis, the mode by which, they propose to carry out that idea was by the creation of what he might call a
  1942
  Federation of Municipalities. Their proposal was that each of the Parliamentary boroughs already existing should be converted into a municipal borough. Each of those boroughs was to have a complete machinery for self-government with respect to its local separate interests. Then, for the government of the metropolis as a whole, these ten municipal boroughs were to be united in a common Representative Assembly, and a common executive administration, thus forming a corporation for the whole of London. The nine new municipalities, in addition to the City proper, that would thus be created, were as follows; —Westminster, which would retain its prescriptive title of City, containing at the present moment, in round numbers, 260,000 persons; Chelsea, 200,000; Marylebone, 473,000; Finsbury, 423,000; Hackney and the Tower Hamlets, containing together 710,000; Lambeth, 320,000; Southwark, 204,000; and Greenwich, 193,000; and then there was the City with 130,000; making ten boroughs, with a population averaging 300,000 in each, and in the aggregate amounting to all but 3,000,000 of people. Each of these would have its separate corporation, consisting of mayor, aldermen, and burgesses; its council, with the usual powers of such bodies; and also with all the powers of vestries and other district bodies under the Metropolitan Local Management Act; its justices of the peace, invested with the usual licensing powers; its salaried police magistrate and police court; its town hall and its borough rate: in fact, each of these metropolitan boroughs would be treated exactly as if it were a borough in any other part of the kingdom. That would be their first step. Each separate portion of London would be provided with a perfect system of self-government to administer the separate affairs of that locality. But the second of these Bills went a great step further. After London had been thus divided into ten municipal boroughs, they proposed that London as a whole should be formed into a corporation, with 134 councillors elected by all the rate-payers, simultaneously with the election of their local authorities, and with aldermen, and a Lord Mayor, not of the City, but of the whole metropolis, chosen in the usual manner. That corporation would, in the first

  1943
  place, become invested with all the functions of the present Metropolitan Board of Works; but the present Chairman. Sir John Thwaites, who had so admirably clone his duty in that position, would not be deprived of it, but would become Chairman of the Standing Committee of that new corporation—an office of great dignity and importance. The special functions of the central government would be to have control over the police, should the city not refuse consent, and over the whole administration of justice; over all sanitary measures, over the improvement of streets and public works of all kinds, including sewage, gas. bridges,; over gaols and asylums and so forth. It would be seen that the scheme was not a revolutionary one. It pro-posed to develop, to enlarge, to create, but not to destroy. In fact they proposed to make the ancient Corporation of London the basis of the scheme. It would absorb the City Corporation, just as the Kings of England in building the Tower of London incorporated the ancient White Tower, instead of razing it to its foundation, and laying out the ground afresh. The only change it proposed to make in the City Corporation was that; its mayor should no longer be called the Lord Mayor, but the Deputy Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor ought to be the head of the whole coloration of the metropolis, and the mayor of the City Corporation should be called the Deputy Lord Mayor, so that in the absence of the Loud Mayor he should, ex officio, sit in his place, and thus they would give the City that precedence to which it had an unquestionable claim. With that one exception, the City would retain, its privileges, its precedents, its property, and its organization unaltered and it would stand at the head of the other corporations which it was proposed to create. The greatest pains, in fact, had been taken to conciliate all those who might naturally be alarmed by that proposal, so as to smooth the way for its adoption; and it would be found that if the plan were carried out no one would suffer by it cither in purse or in position; but that, on the contrary, those who already held offices in the metropolis would, he thought, in every case have the opportunity of taking places analogous to that which they now filled, but of far greater importance, and in most cases of greater emolument as well.
  1944
  The details of the two Bills were, of course, extremely voluminous, but he wished to confine himself strictly to the main ideas on which they were based; and he would not trouble the House by describing their specific; features. Now, the fact that the population of the metropolis amounted to 3,000,000 of persons was, in itself, an ample proof of the importance of making provisions for her self-government. That importance, however, was immensely enhanced by the position which London occupied as the centre of this great Empire, as the heart of their body politic, through which every current of life flowed without ceasing. Every year the metropolis occupied a more and more important position in relation to the rest of the community. Every year their whole political and social system became more and more thoroughly organized, and therefore every part was drawn into more and more intimate relations with the centre. And looking to the future, it was evident that Middlesex would ore long contain what might be characterized as a powerful nation. It was calculated that ere this century closed she would contain a population of from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 of people. One might well have expected that the metropolis of such a country as ours would have itself exhibited, though in a smaller area, that wonderful power of organization, that wonderful aptitude for self-government, and that resolute determination to manage its own affairs which had so eminently distinguished the English people. Strange to say, the very opposite was the truth. Strange to say, there was not, he believed, in all Europe a metropolis— there was not in the whole of this kingdom a town or city—whose system of administration was in a state of confusion so preposterous as that in which the capital of the Empire was plunged. No one who had not gone deeply into the subject could believe the state of things which now existed. It was chaos itself. It might fitly be described in the words in which John Bunyan described the Valley of the Shadow of Death,— namely, that "It was every whit dread-fid, being utterly without order." As Mr. Beal observed in one of his very able speeches on that subject—"The humblest corporate town has had powers conferred upon it which are denied to the metropolis of the Empire." "Nothing,"

  1945
  said the Edinburgh Review of last January—
  "Is more discreditable than the anarchy of London and its circumjacent cities; nothing more unworthy of a nation which professes to govern distant umpires than the fact chat the government of its own capital is in the hands of a mediæval corporation, and of parochial Boards, all at war with each other."
  And it proceeded earnestly to advocate the establishment of a complete system of municipal government in London and the introduction of an effective control over the whole system of local taxation. It added—
  "A municipal government of the metropolis being established on a proper footing, the great questions of pauperism, crime, police, public works, water supply, markets, sanitary improvements, and local taxation would, of course, be dealt with by it."
  The Quarterly Review and many leading newspapers had written in the same sense. What the Edinburgh Review called the "anarchy of London" came mainly from this, that instead of its being cat into certain defined parts, and each portion being complete in itself for the administration of all its local affairs, new districts seemed to have been formed for carrying out every new purpose that had at any time arisen. Thus, London was divided into thirty-nine districts for one purpose; into sixteen for another; ninety for another purpose; fifty-four for another; besides a multitude of other divisions. It was differently divided for the police and for the police courts, for the County Courts, for duties under the Registrar General under the Building-Act, for postal, militia, revenue, water, gas, and Parliamentary purposes; and those districts crossed and interlaced each other in a manner almost reminding one of Dr. Johnson's definition of network— that it was "a decussated reticulation, with interstices between the intersections." At the present moment more than 100 Acts of Parliament were in force for the government of London; and there were no less than 7,000 honorary officials: there were about the same number of guardians of the poor, besides a host of paid officials. He need hardly say that this variety of authorities and of divisions and subdivisions overlapping and crossing each other, the confusion of their powers, and the cross purposes of those endowed with them, involved the rate-payers of the metropolis in a vast amount of needless expense. It had led to much
  1946
  litigation; and, above all, such a state of anarchy not only implied extravagant outlay, but extreme inefficiency as well. They paid heavily, and they did not get any adequate return for their outlay. As an illustration of the extravagance of that system he might mention that evidence was given before Mr. Ayrton's Committee that to spend £10,000 in the Strand district cost in mere friction £3,000. They had in the two cases of Marylebone and Westminster a signal illustration of the economy that resulted from the consolidation of powers. It was shown before the Committee that Westminster, from its numerous subdivisions of vestry action, expended £10,000 more than St. Marylebone in administering an equal sum—£200,000 —collected in rates. Now, nearly £3,000,000 of money is collected and expended by these local powers. Which would be most economical—to have thirty-nine staffs for one purpose, or ten; to have a multitude of authorities, acting without concert, or to have all powers consolidated into ten administrations, complete for ail purposes? He put it to hon. Gentlemen present who were residents in the metropolis what their own personal experience was with respect to its government. Was there one among them who knew anything about the administration of their local affairs? For his own part he could only say that, although he had considerable interests in the West, but still more in the East of London, he had not the faintest idea when he paid his rates—which he scorned to be always doing—who those were by whom he was governed, how or why they had been chosen to govern him; on what grounds they had imposed upon him that expenditure, or whether it was or was not a reasonable and wise one. The system had no real publicity. It was worked almost in the dark. In fact, they knew nothing. They did not govern themselves; they were governed by others, without practically their being in any way consulted. Now, what he wanted was that every rate-payer in London should be the citizen of a borough, choosing those who were to administer the whole of the local affairs in which he was interested, and that those thus chosen should administer them under the eye and in the presence, as it were, of their fellow-citizens. In what he had just been saying, however, he

  1947
  did not mean to find any fault at all with the vestrymen, the guardians, and the other existing officials. It was not the men, it was the system that he blamed. On the contrary, he thought that all had great reason to feel sincere gratitude to those who made such sacrifices of time and labour for the benefit of the neighbourhood in which they lived, and who in many eases did their work so well. Nor did he want to oust them from their functions. He wanted to consolidate their powers and to give them so complete an organization that there should be no waste of such valuable force. In every way it could not but be an evil that the administration of affairs should be thus cut up into pieces, and be conducted on so small a scale, instead of the whole of the local affairs of each large division being conducted by one governmental machine. Very small government was rarely very good government. It was almost impossible, as Mr. Mill had well observed, to have a highly-skilled administration, on a minute scale. It could neither be paid enough nor watched enough to make it first-rate. Government on a large scale had always a more vigorous life. It was more powerful, more rapid, more intelligent. When local administration was too much broken up into fragments there was always great danger of its getting into the hands of men unfit to take part in any work of the kind, and the very obscurity of its operations acted as a powerful encouragement to jobbery, to parsimony, and that which was the twin-sister of parsimony—absurd extravagance. Now, it seemed unaccountable that hitherto the people of the metropolis should have been content to remain floundering in that condition of chaotic anarchy, while new towns, such as Adelaide or Chicago, founded by English emigrants, had a system of self-government as perfect as any the world had seen. It was the more extraordinary because one portion of the metropolis had, for so many centuries, had a very complete organization. He alluded, of course, to the City proper, which occupied so conspicuous a position in this country, and yet, in reality, it was the merest fragment of the metropolis itself. The contrast between the two was most striking. The area of the City consisted of 723 acres, while London covered more than 80,000 acres. The
  1948
  resident population of the City by the last Census was 130,000, as against 3.000,000 in London itself. The assessment of the City was, in round numbers, £2,200,000 per annum, as against £17,000,000 for the metropolis as a whole. Yet that small portion of the metropolis was the only part which had a definite self-contained administration. Now, if each of these ten boroughs were supplied, as he proposed, with a complete machinery for self-government, and then above and beyond that they had a corporation of the whole metropolis, a council formed from the élite of the municipal councils—were that scheme carried out who could doubt that they would then secure the services of a very superior class of men for work of such great interest and importance? He should not. he hoped, be misunderstood if he said that he wished to see London governed by her aristocracy, not, indeed by an aristocracy of mere wealth and rank, but that she should be, as the word really meant, under the rule of her best citizens; that the ablest, the most honourable among them, should aspire eagerly to take a share in the control of her affairs. And there was no man resident within her borders, whatever his social position, who might not well think it a worthy object of ambition to be the head, or to be one of the chief rulers, of a capital of such transcendant dignity and importance. Why, if for a moment they could look on London as separate altogether from England, and think of her rather as Athens, or Rome, or Florence, tinder the Medici, as a community by herself—was there ever yet seen on the face of the earth a city so truly the first of ail cities, in wealth, in power, in art, in science, or in literature, in the vastness of her enterprise of every kind? Again, if they took her as the head and centre of the British Empire, was there ever a city whose sons bore sway over the destinies of so great a multitude of nations? Was there ever a city so truly the foremost loader in the progress of mankind? Why was it that those who lived in such a city—in a city in many ways so fitted to kindle enthusiastic love and admiration—why was it that they felt no touch of that civic patriotism which had always in other illustrious cities characterized their children? At present a Londoner scarcely dreamt of looking

  1949
  upon London with interest and pride and affection, as his own mother city, with whose life his own was bound up. He had no feeling of intimate connection with her. The population of London was a more aggregate of so many individuals; but was not organized as one great whole; they were not, as it were, members of a body politic, and that, undoubtedly, was owing to their having no system of self-government among them. If they had an organization of the kind that he ventured to propose, it would call forth the faculties and the virtues of citizenship; it would at once kindle their dormant interest in the well-being of their capital, and it would be found that men of business, leading tradesmen, merchants, manufacturers, Members of either House of Parliament, men accustomed to handle the machinery of government, would be as ready, as Englishmen had invariably shown themselves, to sacrifice their leisure for the delight of doing work so worthy to be done; and there would revive among them that feeling of pride in that mighty city by which, in the middle ages, her citizens were marked; and while standing and looking on the roofs and towers with which even the banks of that, river would before long be crowned, they could once more speak of London as
  "Urbs speciosa situ, nitidis pulcherrima tectis,
  Grata pciegnnis, deliciosa suis."
  He hoped the Government would look favourably upon the scheme; would give it their careful consideration during the Recess; and if it were found, as he thought it would be, a reasonable and a practicable scheme, they would then bring it forward on their own responsibility. He would not trouble the House further, beyond saying that what he sought was that every rate-payer in London should have a share in choosing the men by whom he was to be governed; should have a voice in the employment of the funds taken from his earnings; should know upon what ground he was required to part with them. His aim was—and he never would rest till he had secured it—to substitute in the government of the capital of the Empire order for confusion; clear and codified laws for the tangled mass of more than 100 Acts of Parliament; to substitute defined and well-marshalled powers for the swarm of disconnected authorities;
  1950
  to substitute publicity for obscurity, economy for extravagance, liberality for meanness, force for inefficiency—he aimed, in short, at bestowing the priceless been of a complete and well-organized system of representative government on the 3,000,000 inhabitants of the metropolis, forming a community which even in mere numbers already exceeded some of the nations best known to history, but, at any rate, a community second to none in greatness, in dignity, and in power. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. MORRISON, in rising to second the Motion, said, he could not help remembering that this was the 16th of June, and that at so advanced a period of the Session it was impossible for any private Member to hope, to carry a Bill like the present, which affected large interest?, and was extremely complicated. He should, therefore, regard this debate not as a pitched battle, but rather as a reconnaissance en force, having for its object more serious operations in the future. He would even venture to recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton) not to press his Motion to a division, but rather to withdraw the Bill, and rest content with the discussion which he would have evoked. Everyone must feel assured that this was a question that would not be allowed to sleep, and though some persons might grumble at the slowness of its growth, he was not surprised that several years should be occupied in dealing with a matter involving such vast interests. All parties were agreed that reform of some sort was necessary, and the thing to he decided was, the shape reform should take. There was a general belief in the metropolis that the rates were unnecessarily high and that the large expenditure might be greatly reduced by more efficient management. Indeed, it was only necessary to point to the numerous conflicting authorities referred to by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) in order to show that there must be enormous waste in the mere cost of administration. There were only two alternatives in reforming the system. It would be necessary either to establish one gigantic corporation for the whole metropolis, like that which existed at Manchester, or to adopt a scheme similar to that proposed in the present Bill. He

  1951
  owned himself a remit convert to this scheme. He was not prepared to defend the City of London in all things, but. having become acquainted with the working of the Corporation, he was struck with the ability displayed in the management of its affairs; and in his judgment we ought to be extremely tender in dealing with an institution which he firmly believed gave general satisfaction to the people of London. If one gigantic corporation were established for the whole of the metropolis, that which was now the peculiar evil of all local institutions in London would be increased—namely, the absence of that corporate life and public spirit which characterized the inhabitants of such towns as Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Londoners knew comparatively little of their vestries and parish boundaries, or of their representatives on the Metropolitan Board, and thus a loophole was opened for mismanagement and corruption. But if they did not know their parishes or vestries they were at all events thoroughly acquainted with the division of the metropolis into Parliamentary boroughs, and he thought he could perceive in his hon. Friend's proposal to make the municipal corporations co-extensive with the Parliamentary boroughs the germ of a satisfactory settlement: of this difficult question. If that Bill passed into law the greatest possible importance would attach to the first elections under it. No doubt the affiliation of corporations was new, but he should have great confidence in the result if they once got the machine into good working order. He had heard, with the greatest delight, the declaration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Government intended to deal with the question; and he felt assured that if the right hon. Gentleman were next year to introduce a measure which was an improvement on the present one nobody could be more rejoiced than his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey. In conclusion, he begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Buxton.)
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read again upon this day six months. The scheme was
  1952
  precisely similar to that which was introduced last year by Mr. Mill, and rejected by the House when he (Mr. Bentinck) brought forward an Amendment similar to that which he had now placed upon the Paper. He regretted that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) should, at so late a period of the Session, have raised a discussion which must be fruitless in its results, more especially as his hon. Friend had obtained a declaration, more or less definite, from the Secretary of State for the Home Department that at the earliest opportunity this important subject should occupy the attention of the Government. With regard to the Bill two propositions might be laid down, which he thought were quite clear to all the world—first, that London was about the worst governed metropolis in the world; and, secondly, that the remedy proposed by his hon. Friend would be utterly unproductive of any good results, and even mischievous in its operation. Some persons seemed to be labouring under the delusion that Mr. Mill was the originator of this measure, but the truth was that the question of municipal reform for the metropolis came into practical existence long before Mr. Mill's political existence as a Member of the House of Commons commenced. In fact, Mr. Mill was merely the mouthpiece of Mr. Beal and other persons outside the House. There was a Committee appointed which investigated the subject during two entire years, and examined witnesses at great length. That Committee condemned, in 1865, the principle of the Bill, and nothing more was heard of it till 1867, when it was revived by Mr. Mill. It was brought forward as a species of election squib in order that Mr. Mill might make himself more popular with those who had supported him at his election. The Committee he had just referred to, which was presided over by his hon. Friend the present Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton), reported in substance that there should be over the whole of the metropolis a central governing body, the members of which should not be elected by one class alone of the inhabitants, but that by it all the inhabitants of London should be fully and adequately represented. Last year this question was again revived by Mr. Mill, who made a most elaborate speech, which, though ostensibly in favour of

  1953
  the scheme, told in point of fact against it. In that speech three principles were laid down—first, that of skilled administration; secondly, that the value of the representative body should be measured by the value of its permanent officers; and thirdly, that there should be an entire consolidation of all districts for the purpose of the government of the metropolis. The present Bill, he maintained, did not fulfil any of these conditions. With regard to the opinions of the constituencies themselves, he showed, on a former occasion, that the great mass of them were against it. But the real objection to the Bill at present was that this was a subject that could not be properly discussed unless it were made a Ministerial measure. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, iii replying to a deputation, had already partially pledged himself to introduce a Government measure on the subject, and he trusted that, before this discussion came to a close, a further pledge would be elicited from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would be prepared next Session to settle it in a manner which would be satisfactory to all parties interested. As he objected to the principle of the Bill he should persevere with his Motion, which was that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words '-'upon this day three months."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, that in this matter metropolitan Members were in considerable difficulty as to how they should act, and as a metropolitan Member he rejoiced that the Government would grapple with the question. To show the necessity of some such measure, he might state that a few years ago he took a residence in a, metropolitan suburb, and he used to pay rates for lighting, cleansing, and paying, but the road was neither lighted, cleansed, nor paved. he confessed, however, he found a great objection existing among his constituency to altering the present state of things. The vestry of Chelsea, he believed, carried out all the duties with which they were charged. The words of the present Prime Minister, who expressed a hope that there might be a larger application of the principle of self-government than at present, as it
  1954
  was now filtered through so many media that it lost its original character, pointed to extended legislation. He would suggest that they might adopt the permissive principle, and carry incorporation out to a certain extent, enabling largo districts to avail themselves of it if they chose, by an independent vote of the rate-payers; while, if they were not disposed to adopt it, they might retain their existing institutions.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought this Bill would be very wisely withdrawn. It appeared to him that "the project before the House was of a very complicated nature, and could not be considered properly until they had first discussed an important Bill that stood lower on the Paper—the Corporation of London Bill. He would remind the House that if any of these districts of the metropolis were desirous of being formed into a corporation, they had the power under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, to ask the Crown to confer that been upon them. He was not aware, however, that any Petitions of importance had been presented in favour of this sweeping scheme for the establishment of no fewer than ten corporations in the metropolis. He did not believe there was any desire in the metropolis for this measure, and the evidence of it was, that this Bill was introduced not by a metropolitan Member, but by one of the Members for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton). On the last occasion when a similar measure was introduced—by Mr. John Stuart Mill—for the erection of seven municipal corporations, that hon. Gentleman stood almost alone in his advocacy. The expense of these corporations was a most important consideration. The Corporation of London had ample funds to lavish on hospitality, but if these new corporations were to adhere to the traditions of the City the cost of their banquets would fall upon the rate-payers. A witness examined on this subject before the Select Committee, and who was a member of the Corporation of London, expressed his opinion that it was a sine quá non that hospitality should exist in the new corporations, and estimated that in Marylebone it Mould entail an expenditure of about £5,000 per annum. He (Mr. Locke) was a member of the Committee, and it appeared to him that London did not want this Bill, but that some peculiar legislation was wanted for the metropolis. He proposed that the

  1955
  present Corporation should he extended to the whole metropolis, and with certain modifications he thought it would in many ways be extremely beneficial to London. The machinery of the Corporation— their staff of officers, who were capable of much more work than they had—would be available for the whole of London; and the funds of the Corporation might be utilized for the same purpose. Then the Corporation had, under a charter of Edward III., the power of altering their own laws, and extending their system of local government—a privilege which they had often before acted upon, and always with great benefit to the public. He had advocated this plan on a former occasion, when he was supported by the worthy Alderman, one of the Members for the City, and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. He recommended the plan to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as one that would be much more beneficial and satisfactory to the public than the creation of ten corporations that would always be overshadowed by the old Corporation of London. If such a corporation were created the most eminent men would feel it an honour to be members of it.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the reason why municipal matters were not so well attended to in the metropolis as in country-towns was that in London men did not attend so much to their social duties; there was a want of sympathy between members of the same Boards. In the administration of the Poor Law they ought to have a small area; but it was necessary to have an extensive area for finch matters as paving, lighting, and sewage.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the subject under discussion had not received, and it was impossible that it could tinder the circumstances of the case have received that fall consideration from the Government which its importance demanded. He at once admitted that, in his opinion, a subject of such magnitude could be satisfactorily dealt with only by the Government of the day. He wished, at the same time, to express the obligations which were their due to those public-spirited men who had so laboriously and with so much public spirit cleared the way for the solution of the question, by placing before the House their views of what was required for the efficient dis-
  1956
  charge of the duties of the municipal administration of the affairs of this great metropolis, Hon. Gentlemen might be inclined to agree with them or not, but he thought they could not deny that the two Bills brought before the House this day displayed great care and great ability, and were a proof of the public spirit of those who had taken this subject up. Having said thus much, he would join in the appeal which had been made to his hon. Friend the Member for East Survey (Mr. Buxton) by the hon. Gentleman who had supported his Motion (Mr. Morrison) that he would not press the second reading of his Bill. He hoped also that his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Bentinck) would withdraw it. It might be asked why the two Bills which stood on the Paper in reference to the metropolis should not be allowed to proceed if they contained in themselves a satisfactory solution of the difficult question of municipal self-government. Without committing himself or the Government—it would be wrong for him to do so on a question which had not been fully con- sidered—he thought the House would perceive that there were very great doubts as to whether the particular modes of dealing with the question proposed in those Bills were the best which could be adopted. Hon. Members on both sides of the House concurred in thinking that London stood in need of the concentration of its powers of self-government, and that the necessary central authority could not be obtained without the sacrifice of part of those exclusive powers which the great Corporation which managed the affairs of the City possessed. Much difference of opinion, at the same time, prevailed as to the subordinate governments which should be established in a population so large as this. It was impossible, he thought, to divide London into ten corporations, each armed with full powers such as those which were possessed by provincial corporations. Corporations such as those of Manchester and Birmingham managed nearly all the local a flairs of those whose interests they represented. They managed the local police, and dealt with the important questions of drainage and water supply. Nobody, he believed, would contend that any of the subordinate corporations which might be established in the metropolis ought to have such powers placed in its hands. What-

  1957
  ever differences of opinion might exist as to matters of detail, no one, he presumed would advocate the proposal that the management of the police force of a great city like London should be sub- divided under ten different authorities. As things at present stood, the disadvantage of having the police under two distinct authorities was felt, and the inconveniences of that state of things would be far more than proportionately multiplied if such a subdivision of authority as was proposed should be carried into effect. Again, the supply of water to the metropolis was surely a matter which ought to be managed, by a great central authority. The minor operations connected with drainage might be con-ducted, as now, by vestries or local Boards; but any great undertaking, such as that which had been so successfully executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, could only be carried out by a central authority. Then, on such matters as the cattle plague, there must be one authority to over-ride the subordinate bodies. That being so, he would ask whether there remained other duties of sufficient importance to justify the establishment, in the metropolis for their discharge, of a number of corporations modeled on those which existed in the provinces, with their mayors, aldermen, and common councilman? Without ex-pressing any decided opinion on the point—he had merely indicated doubts —he must at least express his concurrence with those who maintained that there existed a necessity for a reduction in the number of the bodies by which the metropolis was now governed. But there was a great difference between nine bodies and thirty-eight. One advantage arising from a reduction in the number would, in his opinion, be that we should be able to secure the services, to manage the affairs of the larger districts which would thus be created, of a class of men different from those who now presented themselves to transact the business of the local Boards. The extension of the area presided over would give increased dignity to those by whom its affairs were managed, while it would, he believed, be conducive to economy. He did not, he might add, concur with the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill in doubting that the change would lead also to increased efficiency. The larger bodies would be disposed generally to employ more skilled
  1958
  and able men, and there would be less jobbery, for hon. Members well knew how private influences might be brought to bear on vestries with the view of inducing their members to do that to which they ought not to assent. Then, again, in the discharge of such duties as the looking after education, the institution of libraries, and other matters of that kind, large were, he believed, likely to be found more efficient than small bodies. But, while in principle he looked upon the concentration of power in large districts as generally sound, he must say That, so far as details were concerned, he had failed to derive much advantage from the discussion which had arisen. He concurred in the opinion that we should avail ourselves, as far as possible, of existing powers, and he hoped that when the Government brought forward a measure dealing with the subject they would have the assistance' of the metropolitan Members, and, above all, of that great Corporation which at present wielded such extensive authority, which numbered among its members so many able men, and which derived so much influence from its traditions, so intimately connected with the history of this country. Without such assistance, any attempt to legislate upon the question would be beset with difficulties. As to the course which the Government were prepared to take, he could only say that it was no secret that they were pledged with respect to the business of this Session; and also, to a considerable extent, with respect to the business of the next. No one could tell what might be the fate of the Bill which had lately occupied so much of the time of the House, or whether the Government might not find it necessary to bring that Bill again before the House next Session. They were also pledged to deal with the land question in Ireland—a question surrounded by equal difficulties. Then there was the question of education, which must lead to much discussion, besides the question of licensing and that of local taxation. These were subjects of great complexity and pressing importance, and he might add that every day convinced the Government more and more of the necessity of thoroughly considering, not simply with regard to the metropolis, but in reference to the whole country, the present system of local administration. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had already submitted his

  1959
  views to the House, with respect to the best mode of dealing with the poor in London, while the sanitary condition of the country was the subject of inquiry. There might, therefore, be some advantage in delay, so far as taking up the question under discussion, was concerned. He could not, at all events, undertake to say even that a Bill with respect to it would be introduced next Session; but he would assure the House that the subject would receive the attentive consideration of the Government, and that it would be with great pleasure he would introduce a measure with a view to its settlement as soon as he found himself in a position to do so.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he was prepared to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. BENTINCK, however, declined to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, as the House was taken by surprise, in consequence of the refusal of the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, he should vote for the Motion.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must deny that, the House had been taken by surprise. He had distinctly stated that he intended to press his Amendment.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and negatived.
  Bill withdrawn.

SUNDAY AND RAGGED SCHOOLS BILL.
(Mr. diaries Reed, Mr. Barley, Mr. Graves, Mr. M'Arthur.)
SUNDAY AND RAGGED SCHOOLS BILL.

  (BILL 67) SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. CHRLES REED, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the numerous Petitions which had been present ed approving of the provisions of the Bill afforded dear and conclusive evidence of the feeling existing in the country on the question. Some persons might think the matter was one of light moment; but he was bound to say that, in his opinion, it was one of very grave importance, and involved interests of a national character. He was glad to see that in this House there was no question attracting greater attention and interest among hon. Members than that
  1960
  which had to do with the education of the humbler classes of the community. It might not be generally known that there was an institution in this country influencing and controlling large masses of the population—an institution which was effecting very great results, and which now, for the first time in its history, came to the Bar of the House of Commons, not to ask for any favour, or exemption from any liability hitherto resting upon it but; to ask that no burden might be placed upon it from this time forth, and that it might be allowed to do its work with the same advantage and success that it had hitherto done to the community at large. He should not exaggerate this matter when he said that the Ragged and Sunday (Schools of this country were a power in the land. They were the outgrowth of pious zeal and spontaneous benevolence. They belonged to no party, and although they were certainly supported by different denominations, they were emphatically the institution of the people, and they comprised an educational apparatus to which the people were very much attached. Ever since the great Act of Elizabeth, upon which our Poor Law had been based, schools had been free from liability to local rates, and in the 3 & 4 Will. IV. there was an exemption for all churches, chapels, and schools. In the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of 1847, it was expressly provided that no church should be rated, nor any building exclusively used for the purposes of the gratuitous education of the poor. They knew that in Birmingham that Act had come into operation, and no rate had been allowed to rest upon these institutions, and no question would have arisen but for the judicial decision pronounced by Lord Westbury, and subsequently confirmed by Mr. Justice Blackburn, which declared that all buildings of a charitable or eleemosynary character must be rated to the poor. Now this decision had swept away the prescriptive right of centuries, and had involved these schools in great embarrassment. The teachers had been slow to believe it, and he was glad to say the local authorities had been slow to act upon the decision, and still continued to excuse many schools from the rate. Parliament was therefore now asked to decide that question which was at present left open to the local authorities to determine. In 1866, when this question first arose, two inquiries

  1961
  were made in that House. If he did not mistake, one was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley Davenport), and the other by a Gentleman on his side of the House; and the answer distinctly given by the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department in the late Government was that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, but he could give no promise of a Bill that Session. Now this was rather less ambiguous than many answers given by the occupants of the front Benches, and the Sunday School teachers of the country understood those words as meaning that although the Government had not time to deal with the question then, there was a high probability that they would hereafter bring in a measure to settle this question of difficulty and embarrassment. He held therefore that the late Government did pledge themselves to the teachers of the country that they would give consideration to the settlement of this question. Some deputations had since waited upon Ministers but nothing had been done; and now that a new House of Commons had assembled it was thought, by the friends of these institutions; that the whole question should be brought to a settlement by a Bill. The Government was not to decide the matter; but this House was called upon to declare what the will of the people was with regard to these institutions. In 1782, Robert Raikes — a name not to be mentioned, and especially in the House of Commons, without the greatest respect and reverence — formed the first Ragged School, from which had arisen the whole body of Sunday Schools, at present occupying so high and important a position in the country. Mr. Raikes with a wonderful amount of foresight gathered the children together from the streets of Gloucester, where they were creating the greatest amount of mischief. He lured persons to take charge of them and teach them, and his institution grew until it became so considerable as to be attacked in both Senate and cathedral as one of a dangerous character to the country. But what had happened? That institution, which began in 1782, acquired such strength, that in 1818. there were 5.463 schools in the country with 1,500,000 scholars. By the Census of 1851 there appeared to be 23,498 of these schools. with 2,407,000 children. On March
  1962
  30, 1851, which was the Sunday upon which the Census was taken, there were present 78 per cent of the whole number of children on the books. This proved that these institutions were no visionary matter. Taking the same basis, he calculated that, in 1869, taking the whole of the schools of the United Kingdom, there would be 3,897,000 children visiting them, their gratuitous teachers numbering no less than 498,000. He could not help thinking the House would view this progress as something wonderful, and, as far as he know, it had no parallel in history. He quoted, from the Report of Minutes of Evidence taken on Education of the Lower Orders of the Metropolis, 1817, a statement of Mr. Butterworth (Member for Devon), in these words—
  "The political benefits of Sunday Schools to society is incalculable; for not only the principles of loyalty and obedience to the laws are instilled into the minds of the children, but they are fitted to serve the State in various ways by being taught to servo themselves in an industrious and honest course of life. The attachment of children to Sunday Schools and their improvement in them is very considerable. There are a great number of poor children who are employed by their parents during the week, who have no other opportunity than that afforded on Sunday of receiving instruction."
  The history of that class of efforts was well written by the pen of a Quarterly Reviewer, in these words—
  "Patience and principle have conquered all difficulties, and now we see on each evening of the week hundreds of these young maniacs engaged in diligent study, clothed, and in their right mind. Ladies and gentlemen who walk in purple and fine linen and fare sumptuously every day can form no adequate idea of the pain and toil which the founders and conductors of those schools have joyfully sustained in their simple and fervent piety. Surrendering nearly the whole of the Sabbath— their only day of rest—and often, after many hours of toil, giving, besides, an evening in the week, they have plunged into the foulest localities, fŒtid apartments, and harassing duties. All this they have done, and still do, in the genuine spirit of Christian charity, without the hope of recompense of money, or of fame—it staggers, at first, our belief, but, nevertheless, it is true, and many a Sunday School teacher, thus poor and zealous, will rise up in judgment with lazy ecclesiastics, boisterous sectarians, and self-seeking statesmen."
  He would say, in the strictest Parliamentary sense, that non-interference in this matter would be unfair, impolitic and oppressive. He said it would be unfair, because churches, chapels, and some other places were exempt from payment of these rates on the ground that they were places of

  1963
  religious worship. He had himself been a Sunday School teacher for forty years, and he spoke in the presence of hon. Gentlemen who had acted in a similar capacity, all of whom would bear testimony that these Ragged and Sunday Schools were conducted upon religious principles, and religion was taught and religious worship carried on within their walls, in the most decorous and proper manner, adapted to the wants of the children frequenting them. It might be asked why did not these schools take a license as places of worship? But that was not what they wanted; what they asked for was a declaration from the House of Commons that they should not lose the exemption hitherto enjoyed by them. These schools had often been held in confined and inconvenient places simply to avoid rating. He had seen one in the belfry of a church; and it did seem hard, when a separate building was procured, there should be a liability to pay the rates. There had been a great extension of school accommodation of late years, and separate buildings had been erected; everything, in fact having been done for their improvement. But what was the reward which they were to get? Why, if they were connected with a church or chapel they were not to be taxed, but if they had a separate; building the rate collector would come and make his demand upon them. The cost, of these institutions was borne by the teachers; there was no common fund from which money could be taken to any this tax, and therefore, he said, to make them liable to pay those, rates would be most unfair. Further, he contended that it was of national advantage that these schools should be preserved, and nothing; done to discourage Their development. It was the first duty of Parliament and of statesmen to repress the growth of the criminal classes as much as they could, and to attack, wherever they met them, ignorance, improvidence, intemperance and vicious habits. This, he believed would be best done in these schools, where children were brought together to get instruction based upon the highest principles of religion am morality. He noticed that there was a tendency in the, House to foster purely secular education in our day schools and if this were done it would render it more necessary to preserve Sun
  1964
  day Schools, where religious instruction would continue to be given. The day school dealt mainly with the mental and the intellectual—the Sunday school with the conscience and the heart; the children would be taught what was their duty, and the Word of God would be set before them as the highest standard of duty. He Mould quote the opinion of the Dean of Chichester, who, as Vicar of Leeds, had had so ample an opportunity of observing the influence of Sunday schools—
  "The religious education of the people is given in our Sunday Schools. The mainstay of religious education is to be found in our Sunday Schools. The most earnest, the most devoted, the most pious of our several congregations are accustomed with meritorious zeal to dedicate themselves to the great work. All classes are blended together—rich and poor—one with another, rejoice to undertake the office of Sunday School teacher. Many young men and young women who have no other day in the week for recreation and leisure, with a zeal and charity— for which may God Almighty bless them!—con-secrate their little leisure on the Lord's Day to the training of little children in the way they ought to go. It is here that we are to look for the real religious education of our people."
  He would quote also the opinion of Sir James Kayo Shuttle worth, who avowed that in the Sunday School forty-five years ago he received the first impulse to observe, inquire, and ponder on the methods and discipline of schools for the people, and says—
  "The Sunday School was the root from which sprang our system of day schools. The force which makes religious training the chief aim of the elementary day school was derived from this root. The congregational organization of our school system had the same origin. Long before even enlightened statesmen and leaders of public opinion card for the education of the people, the congregations had begun the work in the Sunday School. When the Government first attempted to organize national education, it not only found machinery ready to its hand, but it also, after various experiments in other directions, found that the churches and congregations contained within themselves a zeal and a purpose as to public education which existed in no civic body, not even in the Parliament itself."
  He referred to the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, who averred—
  "That in the North of England the whole spirit of the working classes had been touched and moulded by the influence of Sunday Schools."
  How much did the criminal classes cost the country? In the district of Lesson Grove, there was a small place which had earned for itself the name of "Little Hell," because it was so

  1965
  pre-eminent for its wickedness, and in that place in the space of fourteen months there had been twenty-eight convictions of children. A Bagged School was now opened in the district, but it had a hard struggle to maintain its existence; and if the collector were to call there for the rates, who could be found who would be able to pay them? In Agar Town there were 464 houses, which contained 698 families, consisting of 2,960 persons. Of these people there were 1,200 under the age of twelve years, and of that number 200 odd went to day schools, while 960 went only to the Sunday and Ragged Schools, and derived there all the education they got. The work of these schools among these most degraded classes was of the utmost value to society. If they desired to check hereditary pauperism and crime, they had no more powerful means at their present command than these Ragged and Sunday Schools. They developed a self-reliant and independent spirit, in proof of which he might mention the case of a boy who had often been convicted, but was induced to attend a Ragged School. Having then applied himself to honest industry, lie brought his father and mother out of the workhouse to live with him in his own home. If these schools were to be taxed, where was the money to come from, for there were no school-pence to rely upon? He had returns from a number of districts, stating that the sums the schools would be called upon to pay in consequence of the late legal decision, would be from £5 to £10—a sum equal to the entire annual cost of most small schools. In Manchester and Salford upwards of 10,000 children were regular attendants at the Ragged Schools; but half the present number of schools would have to be shut up if they were to be called upon to pay rates. In the opinion of the best judges, to have to pay these rates would be a most embarrassing thing for most of the schools, and they would be placed in a position of the greatest difficulty. Most of the schools were now in debt, and such a thing as a surplus at the end of the year was an unknown quantity with them. At this moment the Ragged Schools of London, for instance, owed £4,200; and to cast this new burden upon them would be to prevent the planting of new schools where they were most wanted, to retard the advancement of education, and rather increase than diminish the poor rates of
  1966
  the country. There was another element of good in these schools. They promoted a fusion of classes, developing the sympathy of the rich towards the poor. The admission of the lay element in giving instruction in the schools was most valuable in that respect. How was it that the poor could not be got into the church in Bishopsgate, now about to be abandoned? They had been told that the poor would go to the school with their children, and therefore it was thought better to erect schools leather than to build a new church. The daughters of the wealthy classes gave regular instruction to these poor children, and exercised a most useful influence, through the children, upon the parents. When the Lixes of the Lord Chancellors came to be extended, it would be recorded to the honour of the present Lord Chancellor, and as a bright example for imitation, that for four and thirty years, in the midst of his and onus professional labours, he had devoted his Sunday mornings to leaching some of the poor children of Westminster. He would quote a passage from the Quarterly Review—
  "It is a fact that some 2,000,000 of families from the humbler classes in this country are intrusting their children every Sunday to the affectionate and pious cave of 250,000 of young persons. This bond of pure moral confidence which unites those millions of parents with those myriads of teachers does not a little to diffuse) through the land the wholesome conviction that religion, alter all, is not a thing of mere convention, or only another form of human selfishness, but a generous reality. Anything that should tend to disturb 'his course of unpaid, unbidden, self-denying effort on the one hand, or to take away occasion for this moral response so strong and natural on the other, would not only be a national calamity, hut one, the extent of which no man could limit."
  It was difficult to exaggerate the influence of these Ragged Schools, and an attentive observer — the Commissioner of the Daily Telegraph—noticed their power and that of Sunday Schools during the cotton famine in Lancashire. To tax these schools would be a most oppressive tiling. It had been, said that there was a difficulty in drawing a line with regard to the payment of poor rates, but the line was drawn already. The exemption applied to Government buildings, places of worship, University buildings; and if the great training places for the richer classes were exempted, why should these schools, in which the lowest classes in the country were trained, be made to pay? The

  1967
  greater the inability to meet the demand, for payment of these rates, the move merciful should be the consideration shown. This was to a great extent the people's own effort, for of the teachers in Sunday and Ragged Schools 80 per cent had been scholars there, and now showed how much they felt the value of such institutions by giving their gratuitous services in extending to others the benefit they had received themselves. They pleaded that payment of the tax would involve an increase of 50 per cent in the expenditure of the schools. It should be remembered that the Sunday Schools had been the pioneers of' education in this country, and, as the Dean of Chichester had said, they were the mainstay of our religious education. Yon might as well tax the lifeboat, the lighthouse, or the fire-escape, as schools which, tried to rescue poor children from the temptations of the streets. Those schools, although they were denominational, were not used for the purposes of sectarian teaching. The children who attended them received scriptural instruction; virtuous habits were inculcated, and that appeal to the Word of God which had been declared to be the source and guarantee of our national prosperity—
  "This lamp
  From off the Everlasting throne, Mercy took down,
  And in the night of time stood evermore,
  Beseeching men, to hear, believe, and live."
  He desired that this instruction might pervade the length and breadth of the land, and on all these grounds he trusted the House would support him by voting for the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. GRAVES, in seconding the Motion, said, that unanswerable reasons had been given by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Reed) in behalf of a principle which he (Mr. Graves) believed would commend itself to the sympathy and support of the House. It would probably be objected against it that it was only piecemeal legislation, but I here was nothing which was more convenient for escaping the necessity of immediate action than to go off with the pretext of piecemeal legislation. This Bill simply sought to lay down a law which had been in operation for three centuries, and to set aside the decision of one of the tribunals of the country with regard to it. Another objection urged against the Bill was that it was most desirable to adopt a broad and intelligible principle in assessment to the poor—that we
  1968
  should have no exemptions whatever, but should lay down one hard and fast line for every class and description of property to whatever purposes it might be applied. No doubt that would be a convenient and advantageous principle. Some of the exemptions under the statute of Elizabeth had been carried to such an extreme that the owners of private property had not unnaturally sought to have the area of chargeability extended to more public property. But why, because they had gone to one extreme should they now go to the other? There was no wisdom or force in such legislation. A system which failed to distinguish in the rate ability to the poor between that which created and that which prevented pauperism, was questionable, if not entirely wrong. These schools were a power in the State, and greatly tended to diminish pauperism and crime. It was only those who resided in large towns who were aware of the great benefit conferred by Bagged Schools, and he trusted therefore that; the voice of the representatives of largo towns would be raised in favour of giving the relief prayed for. What was the Sunday School but the outwork of a place of worship? And what was the Bagged School but the outwork of a poor-house? The Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. specially provided that schools in vestry rooms, whether attached to places of worship or not, should not be liable to be rated for the relief of the poor, and this conceded the very principle they were now contending for. In Ireland, by a still more recent Act, all charitable institutions were exempt from rating to the poor; in Scotland the Crown lands and all institutions connected with science, literature, and art were similarly exempt; and even in England, collegiate institutions, places of worship, and Imperial buildings were, exempted from rating. What, then, became of the hard and fast line? Not one shilling of State aid had been given to the Sunday or Ragged Schools. The present Bill, not of a compulsory character, only sought to enforce the law — it only sought to give permission to support these institutions in this most indirect and paltry way. He hoped that the Government would not, by opposing the measure, in which he was sure they would not be supported by the country, take upon themselves a responsibility which he did not covet.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. Reed.)
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he must admit that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Reed) had not said a word too much in praise of the advantages to be derived from education, and of the services rendered by the teachers of these schools. At the same time, he thought the principle involved in the Bill was an unsound principle, and one which, if once recognized, it would he-found most difficult to limit in its operation. The House should remember that the exemption of one class of property from poor rates meant the increase of these rates on another class; and why should the rates on other schools be increased by the exemption of Sunday and Ragged Schools? The measure was not a progressive, but a retrogressive measure; for the tendency of recent legislation, as in the case of mines, had been to rate all descriptions of property, instead of multiplying exemptions. He believed that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) was mistaken if he supposed that the College? were not rated; and if he meant only that the University buildings devoted to science or literature were exempt, the best thing would be to remove that exemption. Believing that to concede the exemption of Sunday and Ragged Schools would only be to create a similar demand in the ease of other institutions, which some might believe as useful as these, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Perry Wyndham.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he felt confident that, however anxious hon. Members might be that the Bill should be read a second time, they would see the propriety of the Government stating their views with regard to it; for it would be admitted, after the able speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading (Mr. C. Reed), that the matter was one of considerable importance; and deserving the patient consideration of the House. It was the pleasant privilege of private Members to look at such a Bill as this simply from the point of
  1970
  view of the good which that Bill would effect, and not at its general bearing. It was the duty of the Government, however—though sometimes a hard and unpopular duty — to see how far a Bill which, taken by itself, might be beneficial, ought to be adopted by Parliament, having regard to the general scope of legislation. Now, the House had requested the Government to undertake the consideration of the whole question of local taxation, and no branch of that question was more important than that of exempting particular descriptions of property from rating. It would be necessary in such a ease to consider the question of the exemption of Government property, as well as of charitable institutions and of schools generally. He entirely concurred in all that had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Reed) with regard to the importance of these charitable institutions, and he (Mr. Goschen) did hope, that whatever criticisms might be passed upon the course which the Government would feel it their duly to take on the present occasion, it would not be said that they undervalued the benefits conferred by Sunday and Ragged Schools. The hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, made out a strong case on behalf of these institutions, but he (Mr. Goschen) contended that the case made out by the hon. Member was just as strong in favour of giving direct aid to Sunday and Ragged Schools out of the rates as it was in favour of relieving them from rates. [Mr. C. REED: We do not ask for a rate.] His hon. Friend said they did not ask for a penny, but they really did. What was more, he (Mr. Goschen) thought it was an open question whether direct aid should not be given to them. Whenever the general subject of supporting schools by rates came to be discussed, then would be the time to consider the propriety of giving them direct aid. At present, however, they wished to be considered as relying on voluntary contributions, while indirectly they were securing public aid. Now, it was only right that we should know on which of these principles they rested; because, if they were to have public privileges, they must assume public responsibilities; the public would have a right to know how these schools were conducted; and it would be a question how far they ought to fall in with any system of assisting schools from the rates

  1971
  which might come before the country. At all events, they could not be viewed as solely supported by charitable contributions, if they enjoyed exemptions from taxation which other institutions did not enjoy. No machinery was provided in the Bill for carrying out the object of the measure. The Bill simply asked that Sunday and Hugged Schools should be exempted from raring. Was this exemption to apply to all buildings, whether used occasionally or exclusively for this purpose? [An hon. MEMBER: Exclusively,] That was an important admission, but it was not in the Bill. The position, then, would be this—if a building was used exclusively for a Sunday School—that was, once in seven days— it was to be exempted from rating; but if it was to be put to other uses during the week, it was not to be so exempted. So that the School Committee would be placed in this dilemma — that if they used this building for any other purpose—say, for a day school—they would forfeit their claim to be exempted from rating. With respect to Ragged Schools, many of them were held, not in separate buildings, but in houses which were rated. There was no definition given of a Sunday School, and none could be given except that it was a school which met on a Sunday. It might be a school held on Sunday in which no religion was taught at all, or might be irreligious. There were different schools that met on Sundays for secular teaching. A number of workmen might meet to hoar a person read history for them, which would be instructive, and might be considered a Pun lay School. He did not wish to base his opposition to the Bill on these grounds, because it might be that such objections might be mot in Committee. The Bill exempted Ragged Schools as well as Sunday Schools from rating, but did not define what a Ragged School was: and he asked whether all schools where gratuitous education was given wore to be considered Ragged Schools? It was his business to place these practical difficulties before the House, and if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should feel bound to vote against the Bill, otherwise he would have been content to move the Previous Question, looking on this subject as one of a class which must come under consideration when
  1972
  the whole question of local taxation was dealt with.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he had always understood the object of the Act of Queen Elizabeth was to tax the "beneficial occupation" of a building; but those schools wore not, in the legal sense, beneficially occupied, although they were productive of immense advantage to the public, through the spread of education and the suppression of crime. He represented between 100 and 200 parishes in South Nottinghamshire, and he did not believe there was a single individual in the whole of that constituency who desired that these schools should be rated.
  Question put. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 71: Majority 157.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  DEBTS OF DECEASED PERSONS BILL
  On Motion of Mr. HINDE PALMER, Bill to abolish the distinction as to priority of payment which now exists between the Specialty and Simple Contract Debts of Deceased Persons, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HINDI PALMER, Mr. LOCKE KING, and Mr. HEADLAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 165.]

  POOR LAW BOARD PROVISION ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL
  On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill to confirm three Provisional Orders made by the Poor Law Board, under "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867," with reference to the city of Chester, the incorporated hundreds of Unsteady and Happing, in the county of Norfolk, and the parish of Wool Leaving ton, in the county of Sussex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. GOSCHEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first, time. [Bill 166.]

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL
  Select Committee on the Metropolitan Commons Act (1866) Amendment Rill nominated:— Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. FREDERICK STANLEY, Mr. BONHAM CARTER, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. BUXTON, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON Sir HENRY SELWIN-JBBETSON, Mr. CHARLES REED, Mr. ROWLAND WINN, Mr. HENRY SAMCELSON, Colonel EARTTRLOT, and Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.