Sitting of 5 May 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Third Report—Selection [No. 71].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [127].
Ordered—First Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* [128].
Second Reading—Income Tax* [126]; Gas Works Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (No. 2)* [113]; Pensions Commutation* [122].
Third Reading—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes* [91]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [62], and passed.

IRELAND—THE CENSUS—FALSIFICATION OF RETURNS.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a statement in "The Galway Indicator" newspaper, to the effect that in a large district of Connemara the Census paper had been tampered with and wrongfully filled, up, and that the matter had been reported to the County Inspector and communicated to the authorities in Dublin; and, assuming that such statement be correct, what course would the Government adopt in order to insure correct returns and bring the persons offending to justice?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the constabulary had reported that in certain districts of Ireland, he believed in Galway, unauthorized persons had obtained possession of Census forms, and had filled them tip wrongly by returning the religion of some females as Protestants, whereas they were really Catholics. Further inquiry was being made, and, if it could be proved that the assertions made were true, the offenders would be brought to justice.

FRANCE AND GERMANY.—QUESTION.
SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Correspondence took place between the English Government and the Governments of France, Austria, Prussia, and the smaller German States, in reference to the demand made in August 1866 by the French Government on the Cabinet of Berlin to cede to France the fortress of Mayence and a portion of the Rhenish provinces of the Prussian Monarchy;
270
and, if such a Correspondence exists, whether there is any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, there were rumours in the autumn of 1866 that France had claimed the cession of Mayence as compensation for the aggrandizement of Prussia in Germany, but they presently subsided, and there is no Correspondence which could be published on the subject.

UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KENNAWAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether under the Rating and Local Government Act the powers and functions of Union Assessment Committees would not virtually be superseded; and, if it is intended to repeal the Union Assessment Committee Act of 1862?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, it is not intended to supersede by the Rating and Local Government Bill the powers and functions of the union assessment committees. The only powers transferred to the parochial board with respect to the valuation lists are those now possessed by the overseers as to the preparation of the lists in the first instance before they are submitted to the assessment committee for their approval. It may be found necessary to insert some words in the Bill providing more clearly that the valuation lists shall be conclusive for the purpose of the consolidated rate, as they are at present for the poor and other rates.

UNITED STATES—ENGLISH CLAIMS—THE MIXED COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Mixed Commission about to be appointed under the Convention with the United States will be authorized to consider and adjudicate on the Claims of British Merchants for the losses sustained by them by the destruction of their property by Citizens of the United States during the late Civil War in America?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: No Convention has as yet been concluded with the United States; but if it is determined eventually to establish a Mixed Commission for the settlement of British and

  271
  American claims arising out of the Civil War, due notice will be given, so that all parties may bring their claims forward.

ARMY—ESTABLISHMENT OF CAVALRY REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Cavalry Regiments serving at home have not yet been completed to the establishment of Officers, although the non-commissioned Officers and men of the additional troop have been already raised?
MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the reason the augmentation vacancies had not been filled up was because, if filled up at this moment they would carry purchase rights, which he did not think would be proper under present circumstances.

CHINA—BRITISH MINISTER AT PEKIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the present condition of the relations of China with Foreign Nations, Her Majesty's Government do not consider it advisable to fill up the appointment of Minister at Pekin, now held temporarily by Mr. Wade?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no difficulty in answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The office of Minister at Pekin was not actually vacant. Sir Rutherford Alcock was the British Minister at Pekin, and he was at present in England on leave of absence, after a residence of four years at his post. Provision was made during the absence of Sir Rutherford Alcock for the discharge of his duties by the appointment of Mr. Wade as chargé d' affaires, and that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, was, in the absence of the chief or regular representative, a very sufficient provision, Mr. Wade being a gentleman of great ability, and thoroughly competent to discharge the duties of the Mission. Mr. Wade possessed, in addition to other more general qualifications, a very complete knowledge of the Chinese language, so that he had all the gifts necessary satisfactorily to fulfil the functions of the office entrusted to him.

INCOME TAX BILL.—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL STUART KNOXasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to proceed that night with the Second Reading of the Income Tax Bill, which was not yet in the hands of Members?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied that in financial Bills of that kind, it had not been the rule of the House to require to see the details before acceding to the principle. This measure was a mere formula, there being nothing in it beyond the expression of the Resolution, although, owing to an accident, the manuscript of the Bill had not been sent to the printer in time for it to be delivered that day.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state after what hour he will take it?
MR. GLADSTONE: At whatever hour the Order may be read.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

POOR LAW (METROPOLIS).

  ADDEESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in rising to call attention to the operation of the Poor Law within the Metropolis, and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the policy and administration of the Poor Law within the Metropolis,"
  after pointing out that the subject was fortunately not mixed up with the interests of any political party, said, that the law of England gave to every destitute person, no matter what might be the cause of his destitution, an absolute and complete right, at the public expense, to food, clothing, and shelter whenever he might require them. The right of relief existing in this country was opposed to the practice of all other countries in the civilized world; and there was not in any part of Europe, he believed—certainly, there was not in America—such a right to relief from a legally constituted authority, although, of course, all countries, both in Europe and America, recognized the duty of

  273
  giving relief to persons in need and destitution; there was, however, a vast and important difference between the two principles. He would briefly advert to the practice of other countries with regard to the relief of the poor. In Prussia, a country administered by a wise Government, which was careful of the best interests of the people, no one possessed a right to relief when in a state of destitution; and he would take the case of Berlin, a city which might be fairly compared with this great Metropolis, except that it was a comparatively new city, and had rapidly grown in wealth and power. In Berlin, the relief of the poor was administered by a committee of the town council, which likewise administered the affairs of all the hospitals and all the charities in the various parts of the city. Under this committee were 110 district committees, each consisting of six or seven persons, and these sub-committees administered what was analogous to our system of out-door relief. All applications for relief were carefully considered and sifted by the district committees, and there were only two classes of persons who constantly received out-door relief—namely, the infirm or aged, and widows with more than one child. There was no system for rendering assistance to able-bodied persons; but, on the other hand, there was what was called an extraordinary system of relief, under which medical advice, food, clothing, and money were given to persons in destitute circumstances. No one was, however, relieved from the necessity of finding some means of supporting himself, and assistance was given only to persons who had been stricken down by some misfortune. The total population of Berlin was about 700,000, and the whole number of persons relieved in 1868 was 38,000, the entire cost of relief, inclusive of hospital relief, being £168,000. He drew a great distinction between relief which was given as a right, and relief which was given as a duty; but he did not ask for this inquiry with the remotest idea that we could get rid of, nor indeed did he wish to get rid of, the right possessed by the poor of this country to relief. He know it was utterly impossible, and probably it was undesirable, to endeavour to effect so great a revolution in the social condition of the country. So long as the poor
  274
  existed, which from present appearances must be always, it was, no doubt, the bounden duty of every Christian to extend sympathy and care to them; but he thought the tendency of recent legislation had been rather to meet the demands made by pauperism than to check or cure it; for he considered there had been no very decided effort to restore habits of self-reliance to those who had fallen into a state of dependence, and to make them useful and respectable members of society. The latest published Returns of the Poor Law Board showed that 121,000 persons received out-door relief in the Metropolis on the 1st of January, 1870; and the general effect of the Returns was that the number of out-door paupers constantly in the Metropolis was not more than 120,000. That figure, however, gave but a very insufficient idea as to the extent of pauperism in London at the present time, and unless we realized the full extent of the evil, we should fail in our efforts to mitigate it. The figures he had quoted represented only the number of paupers who applied for relief on a particular day, and not the gross number throughout the year. Now, he had been at some pains to obtain from the authorities in various parts of London, facts on which he could place the most perfect reliance; and he should be able to show that the number of pauperized persons, who were more or less in a state of dependence on the charity which the law recognized and made compulsory, was far larger than would appear from the published Returns of the Poor Law Board. He had obtained from three Unions, which might be deemed characteristic of certain districts of the Metropolis, Returns which would justify the allegation he had made. Take the Strand Union, for example—The mean total for that Union which went to make up the figure of 120,000 out-door paupers, and some 35,000 in-door paupers, was for the year ending on Lady-day, 1870, 2,070; but the actual number of persons who received relief during that year was 7,390. In Lambeth, the mean number appearing in the Return was 7,680, representing the number of paupers, indoor and out-door, on the 1st of January and the 1st of July in that year; but the actual number of separate individuals who received relief was 21,320. Again, the Government Return gave

  275
  4,080 for Whitechapel; but the number of persons actually relieved in the year was about 15,500. He could show that the proportion of the population who, in the course of the year, received relief in one shape or another under the Poor Law system, exclusive of medical relief, amounted to 15 per cent of the whole—in other words, one person in every seven in London received relief in some shape or other from the Poor Law authorities in the course of the year. Now, he ventured to say this was a very serious and alarming state of things. Side by side with our increasing wealth and commercial prosperity pauperism was also increasing to an alarming degree, and constituted a problem which deserved the most serious consideration of the House and the country. He would for a moment recur to figures showing the growth of the Metropolis during the last 10 years. In 1860 the population of the Metropolis was estimated at 2,770,000, the number of paupers was 86,000, and the amount expended in their relief was £796,000, or a burden of 5s. 9d. per head of the population. In 1863 the population had increased to 2,904,000, the paupers to 94,000, and the expenditure to £868,000, or 6s. per head of the population. In 1867 the population stood at 3,082,000, the paupers at 126,000, and the expenditure had gone up to £1,175,000, or 7s. 8d. per head. In the year 1870—and hon. Members would now perceive the full force of the contrast between the two periods—the population was taken at 3,215,000, the mean number of paupers at 141,000, and the expenditure in poor relief had reached £1,466,000, or an average burden of 9s. 1d. per head upon the whole population of the Metropolis. These figures showed that while the cost of administering the Poor Law in the Metropolis had increased from £796,000 to £1,466,000, or 84 per cent within 10 years, there had been an increase in the number of out-door paupers to the extent of 77 per cent; that the in-door paupers were 35 per cent more numerous in 1870 than in 1860, while the population generally had only increased by 16 per cent during the same period of time. But if the increase in the pauperism and expenditure of the Metropolis, alarming though it was, were compared with that of the country
  276
  generally, the contrast became more alarming still, more especially when taken in connection with the large towns, many of whom were in a like position with the Metropolis. The population of the country, exclusive of the Metropolis, might be taken at 18,000,000; and, while the paupers had increased in number from 717,000 to 827,000, the expenditure had gone up from £4,600,000 to £6,200,000, representing an advance of about a third, while the expenditure of the Metropolis had nearly doubled in the same period. The burden imposed upon the population for the maintenance of paupers was 9s. 1d. per head per annum in London against 6s. 1d. in the remainder of the country, a state of things demanding serious consideration, and which, in his opinion, most fully justified the appeal which he was making to that House and the Government for an inquiry into this great question. He found that in Mile End the charge for in-door relief had increased from £5,442 in 1860 to £6,300 in 1870; the out-door relief in the same period having increased nearly threefold, from £3,370 to £8,089. In Poplar, the in-door relief was £6,054 in 1860, and £9,172 in 1870; the out-door relief being £9,524 in 1860, and £23,348 in 1870. As there had been in Poplar distress arising from exceptional causes, he should not insist strongly upon that instance. In Hackney, again, the cost of in-door relief was £4,505 in 1860 and £7,730 in 1870; and of out-door relief £4,978 in 1860, and £19,860 in 1870; in fact, he might fearlessly say that a similar state of things existed throughout the majority of the districts of the Metropolis. As the result of personal inquiry, he found that the class of persons who were demoralized by the receipt of parochial relief were not instructed artizans, but persons of the uninstructed labouring classes, who had no regular employment, but earned what they could and spent it as it came, with the result that, if they were out of work at the end of a week, they went for assistance to the parish on the following Monday morning. One of two things was clear from this state of facts—either that these classes were insufficiently paid, or their habits were careless and improvident in a remarkable degree. The result of his inquiries had also verified the fact that the classes

  277
  who were the least certain in their earnings or employment were the persons who most readily married and took upon themselves, without thought, the responsibility of maintaining families. The result of this was that the relief given in the districts to which he had alluded was a relief in aid of wages; as, for instance, the widow with a family, who earned a little money by needlework or charing, could not afford to work for the rate of payment she received if she did not obtain also assistance from the parochial authorities. Passing on to the question of the administration of the Poor Law, he found that in the Metropolis there were 36 Unions or parishes, each with the distinct and separate management of its own poor; the asylums and hospitals were under the control of an independent Board, consisting of representatives from the Boards of Guardians, and gentlemen nominated by the Poor Law Board; the district schools again were under the control of a separate Board, and yet another Board, called the Metropolitan District Asylum Board, had the management of imbecile and lunatic paupers; from these arrangements it resulted that there were four diferent distinct bodies in the Metropolis charged with the administration of the poor. He would not venture to object to the existing arrangements, but he must say that they struck him as being somewhat complicated, and calculated to bring into action a good deal of clashing authority, the result being an absolute want of uniformity in the provisions made in the different metropolitan Unions for the relief of the poor. Even in the article of diet, in the food supplied to the poor, there was absolutely no uniformity whatever, a fact evidenced in the most striking manner by the Return moved for by his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens). For instance, meat was supplied by the contractor at the rate of 6s. 1½d. per stone to the Poplar Union, but it cost the Strand Union 9s. 4d. per stone; so butter cost 108 s. per cwt in Wandsworth, but only 84 s. in Islington; cheese varied from 38 s. per cwt in Islington, to 103 s. in Lewisham; milk from 7½d. per gallon in St. George's-in-the-East to 1s. 9d. in St. Luke's; and coals from 14 s. per ton in Islington to 20 s. in Whitechapel. Another objection that he took to the administration of our workhouses was, that the word "workhouses" was in itself a
  278
  misnomer. A workhouse under the present system was chiefly an asylum for a great number of persons that were old, infirm, and incapable of working. If that were so, it would be better to call it an asylum; for in spite of the grinding of corn, breaking stones, and cutting wood, which were occasionally required from able-bodied paupers, no work of a character likely to qualify the inmates for earning a living outside the walls of the house was ever intrusted to them. In the workhouses of the Metropolis, too, there was an absence of classification and arrangement. There was the greatest zeal exhibited on the part of the Guardians themselves, and it was supplemented by an able and intelligent staff of officers, but there was little opportunity afforded for that classification, and instruction in labour, which he believed would result in much educational advantage to the poor people who were shut up within their walls. Passing from that objection, he came to another still stronger, to the system of administration of out-door relief. By an agenda paper which he held in his hand, he found that there were in one Union applications in one day for relief by 200 persons. Now, the Guardians of that Union met at 11 o'clock; and, however zealous and attentive in the performance of their duties, it was utterly impossible that they could make such inquiries into all those cases as strict justice and prudence demanded, sitting, as they did, only once a-week. The scale of relief, too, varied according to the parish in which it was administered, and there was no system and no rule under which any attempt at uniformity was made. For instance, he found in nine different Unions of the Metropolis, nine different rates of relief doled out—thus, in one Union he found a married couple receiving 5s. and a loaf; in another, 6s.; in a third, 6s. 6d.; and, in a fourth, only 4s. 6d. The same differences in relief he found given to a woman with bastard children. The consequence of this, and of the impossibility of making the necessary inquiry into the cases, was that frauds were continually perpetrated. In one instance a woman, on the pretence that she was the sole support of an aged husband and that her son was only 12 years old, received relief for some time, till it was discovered that she had never had any son, and that her husband had all along

  279
  been maintained in the workhouse infirmary. In another case a man with chronic bronchitis was employed at night at some gasworks. He slept during the day, and as the parish doctor, who always called in the day-time, always found him in bed and always suffering from chronic bronchitis, the man was recommended as a deserving subject for relief. He was informed, and he considered it a suggestion tending to effect considerable reductions in the expenditure for out-door relief, that, if a good system were established by which each case could be thoroughly sifted, it would modify both in character and extent the nature of these frauds. Then, again, there were many houses in London where all the inmates were in receipt of assistance from the parish. The assistance might not, it was true, be large, but it would generally be found that it was sufficient for their lodging; so that, as a matter of fact, the rent was paid by the parish. Indeed, it was a very common thing for people to say—"Give us a little money to pay our rent, and we will get along." It was a matter for those who took a deep interest in the people to consider whether they were benefited by being doomed to such a system of misery and wretchedness as resulted from the dispensing of so small a sum in the shape of out-door relief. The annual elections of Boards of Guardians were also open to objection, for no sooner did a gentleman thoroughly understand this difficult subject than he had to go before his constituents for reelection. It thus frequently happened that a man, just as he had qualified himself for the duties which he had to perform, was sent adrift to suit local or party exigencies, and another man was put in his place. He knew hon. Gentlemen opposite were favourable to a system of frequent elections; but in this instance he believed they did more harm than good. What was wanted in a Guardian was a good practical amount of knowledge, as well as zeal and attention to his duties. With regard to the asylums, too, he could not help remarking that the system under which they were managed required great care and watchfulness; and, in his opinion, was open to great improvement, for in great establishments there was always a tendency to extravagance. In many cases, the persons admitted to our large asy-
  280
  lums were not the persons for whom they were intended. The system of boarding out harmless imbeciles was carried out in Scotland with great success, and the results certainly justified consideration as to whether a similar system could not be adopted in this country. He would next refer to the schools; and although ready to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which they were managed, the cost needed justification, for the Central London District School, containing 1,200 children between the ages of 3 and 16, was carried on at a cost of 11 s. 7d. per child per week; the sum being made up of 4s. 3d. for food and clothing, 3s. 4d. for common charges, such as superintendence; and 4s. for rent, interest, and re-payment of loans. The cost of maintenance without rent was, therefore, 7s. 7d. At the South Metropolitan School, the charge for food and clothing was 3s. 6d., and common charges 1s. 8d.; making a total cost for maintenance of 5s. 2d., which, with 1s. 2d. for loan and interest, made a total charge of 6s. 4d. At the North Surrey School, the charge for food and clothing was 3s. 11 d., for common charges 2s. 9d., and for loans and interest 1s. 9d.; making a total of 6s. 8d. for maintenance, and a gross total of 8s. 5d. per week per child. These figures, having been extracted from the official Reports, could be trusted. The cost would necessarily be greater in a public institution than in a workman's home; but no working man could afford to pay for the education and maintenance of his children at that rate, yet the result must be very remarkable to justify such expenditure as this, and the matter was certainly worthy of serious consideration. The Scotch system of boarding out and educating children might, perhaps, be adopted with advantage, as the reports made upon it showed that the children brought up under that system were better cared for than the majority of the ordinary English labourers' children, or English workhouse and district school children—in fact, he was able to state, from personal observation, that the children in Scotland so situated led a very happy life. One special advantage of the system was, that the children were naturally trained, instead of being trained on a system; and, as Dr. Acland said, the great defect of the workhouse school system was, that the absence of parental training,

  281
  and unexercised affections, entirely counterbalanced the whole of the advantages resulting from superior food and clothing. The Scotch system was almost perfect; the children were trained by their foster parents as their own, and, being educated in common things, they were naturally fitted for the position they were intended to occupy. The children of the district school, however, grew up as part of a great machine, instead of being taught self-dependence, and there was great danger that as soon as the child was separated from the system its education would be found wanting. In short, it was an unnatural system, to mass such children together in large schools; and, although he could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the interests of the children were attended to in many of these large establishments, he did not believe it was a beneficial or advantageous system for them. The next point to which he should direct attention was that of sick relief, which was the most unsatisfactory part of the metropolitan Poor Law administration. At present it pauperized the applicant, who, though able and willing to provide himself with everything except medical advice and assistance, was unable to get that assistance without either becoming a pauper, or burdening himself with a long doctor's bill. The committee appointed by the authorities of some of the London Hospitals had made a very excellent report on out-door medical relief, and some attempt at amendment of the system of medical relief was needed, which he should himself like to see, and which would enable the labouring poor to obtain medical relief as far as possible at some small cost to themselves, so that their spirit of self-dependence should not be destroyed even in the time of sickness. The system which had been successfully carried out in Ireland embodied this principle, and an inquiry into the metropolitan system would show the absolute necessity for its amendment, so that it should not result in pauperizing the people. The system of control by the Poor Law Board needed special attention also; and the existing medical districts were much too large to admit of a proper discharge of the duties of the medical officers concerned. At present, in order to prevent and control what was called the waste of public money, the Poor Law Board exercised
  282
  authority over Boards of Guardians, the consequence of which was the responsibility was so divided between the Poor Law Board and the Boards of Guardians, that the latter could not raise the salary of a porter or nurse by 2s. per week without the consent of the Poor Law Board, and dismissal was always subject to the right of appeal. The system was a bad one, and some means ought to be devised by which responsibitity should rest on one authority only. Act after Act had been passed upon the subject, until there was really now no possibility of ascertaining in which body the power rested. If work was to be done well it should be done by an individual or a Board on its own responsibility. The duty to be performed should be plainly laid down, and then whoever had to administer relief should do his work himself. He did not desire immediate legislation; but there had been no inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law within the Metropolis since 1861, although since that time there had been frequent and almost yearly changes in the law. In 1861 the poor relief of the Metropolis was administered in most cases by the parishes, acting under special Acts of Parliament; but all those special Acts had been swept away, and now every parish and every Union in the Metropolis were under the control and direction of the Poor Law Board. It would be well to have an inquiry into the results of that system, for one of those results was, that, side by side with the administration of the Poor Law Board, there had been a growth of expenditure of nearly 100 per cent. They could not legislate with advantage on a great question like that without the greatest deliberation, or without such an inquiry, conducted in public, as would carry public feeling and opinion with them. The time was favourable for its calm investigation. There was no panic in regard to pauperism; and though the weekly Returns published by the Poor Law Board were not entirely accurate, still there was a reduction in the pauperism of London. He hoped, if granted, that the inquiry would result in the recommendation that there should be a larger area for the administration of in-door relief, and that there should be a system of arrangement and classification in the several

  283
  workhouses in the Metropolis; both of which improvements, when carried out, would, he thought, tend to promote the advantage and comforts of the poor, as far as they could reasonably be promoted. In order to effect this, it would be necessary to divide the Metropolis into three or four districts, under the control of representative bodies, elected perhaps triennially, but responsible wholly and completely within their own areas for the administration of relief in their districts. At the same time, he felt that there must be established some system providing a more minute subdivision of areas for out-door relief, a branch of poor relief which, great as might be the evils attending it, could not be done away with. Out-door relief must be given in many cases, in order to re-instate temporarily necessitous persons in a position in which they might again fight their way in life; but, connected with it, minute inspection, like that adopted under the Prussian and Berlin systems, must, as far as out-door relief was concerned, be applied to the Metropolis. Personal responsibility should be brought home to the Guardians and officers entrusted with the administration of that kind of relief, while personal visitation was brought home to every applicant for it; and he also desired to see some bonâ fide education test, so to speak, adopted in regard to able-bodied men and women receiving relief; and whether the relief given was in-door or out-door relief, its recipients should, as far as possible, be required to contribute something in return. He knew that was a difficult problem, but by patient and careful inquiry it might perhaps be solved in a way that would be satisfactory to the working classes, and so as not to interfere unduly with the labour market. The present system of relief tended greatly to injure and demoralize the poor; and under its operation—as the Rev. Canon Miller, Vicar of Greenwich, stated—they were largely undermining the self-reliance, providence, and self-respect of very many of the wage-earning class, and were training up a generation of beggars. By the system which had been permitted to grow up, they had now an army of paupers greater and more costly, directly and indirectly, than any Army which might be the subject of debate in that House; and
  284
  although the Motion he now made would not affect, as Army Organization Bills might do, the fate of a Ministry or the interests of great parties, yet it was one that touched a question deeply and ultimately concerning the future welfare of the nation. The terrible cancer of pauperism was eating into the vitals of the people, was destroying the bone and sinew of the country, and raising up around them a numerous class who did not feel that it was their duty, their highest interest, their greatest advantage to work. He had no desire to stop the flow of public benevolence, but he felt that the truest charity was to put the poor or the suffering man on his legs again, and enable him to fight the battle of life for himself, and that to sap his energy and self-reliance was to inflict on him the most serious injury. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Address of which he had given Notice.
  MR. RATHBONE, in seconding the Motion, said, that after the able and exhaustive speech they had just listened to, no one would attempt to prove that an inquiry was unnecessary. He was of opinion that the desired inquiry must not only be made into the pauperism of the United Kingdom, as would be proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); but those who would conduct it must also consider the questions that were raised by the recent Minute of the late President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen), as to the evils caused by both legal and charitable relief being given to the same individuals by means of bodies who acted without co-operation. After what had been said by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), he need not attempt to prove the necessity for inquiry, and he should therefore confine himself to these two points—first, the effect of the concurrent action of legal and charitable relief; and, secondly, the necessity for an entire reorganization of the Poor Law Board. With respect to the first point, all who had in recent years attempted to deal with the evils of pauperism must have been surprised at the enormous amount of money that was wasted, owing to both legal and charitable relief being given without any co-operation between the persons who were appointed to dispense it. As there had never yet been

  285
  proposed a remedy which commended itself to the public, they might fairly ask for a Commission to inquire into the steps that were taken in other countries with, a view to applying their experience to our own evils. For instance, he believed that at Boston, in the United States, all the Poor Law offices and those of the principal charities were placed under one roof, with a view to the centralization of relief; the consequence of this amalgamation was, that poverty and pauperism there had been kept in check to a great extent. Inquiry might also be made as to whether workhouses properly so called should not be, instead of resorts for the indolent, rather places where those who had lost the habit of work might be detained and taught to regain it. There was, however, a much more difficult problem to solve, for the present Poor Law had relieved the rich of their duty towards the poor, whom it had caused to depend on other resources than those which were provided by their own industry and providence. This difficulty had been greatly increased by the enormous growth of the large towns, in which the work of relieving the poor developed itself into such large masses that those who desired to be useful were discouraged by a feeling of the hopelessness of any individual effort. If the work were broken up into manageable portions, and charitable associations were brought into systematic connection with the relief of the poor, existing evils might be efficiently dealt with, and a disgrace would be removed from a nation that calls itself a civilized and par excellence a practical nation. The Royal Commissioners who were appointed to draw up a scheme of Poor Law relief for Ireland, including the late Archbishop Whateley, and other men of great ability, recommended that out-door relief should be dispensed by voluntary associations aided by the public funds, on condition of these associations subjecting themselves to certain rules and to a certain amount of supervision and advice from efficient officers who would be appointed by the Crown. If such a step were taken in England, benevolent persons might be induced to form themselves into charitable associations, by which means the assistance given to the deserving would be made more effectual, while there would be greater means of detecting imposture. As to the re-or-
  286
  ganization of the Poor Law Board, he regretted that the Premier should have stated that the office of President of that Board was not one of primary rank and responsibility, for if the right hon. Gentleman would apply himself to a consideration of Poor Law questions, he must come to the conclusion that during the next 20 years that Board would become a leading Department of the State. How was that Department—any laxity in the administration of which saps in the industry and virtue of the labouring population of this country—treated? No President of the Poor Law Board had been allowed to remain long enough at its head to make himself thoroughly master of the Department, or as soon as he had done so, he was removed to another office. Had the right hon. Member for Oxford University or the City of London been allowed to retain the office of President sufficiently long they would, no doubt, have been enabled to effect reforms which would have conferred the greatest benefit on the community; and so with regard to his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, but there was no chance of any President being left in his post long enough to do this. The fact was, the better they did their work the sooner they were removed. Nor is this arrangement compensated by any sufficient strength in the permanent element. The Board, therefore, wanted the experience which was necessary to proper responsibility and continuity of action. The old Poor Law Board did their work extremely well; they stopped the great demoralization of the labouring classes in the rural districts, and he regretted there was not such a Board now to do the same work for the labouring population of large towns. He admitted that the old Board had no element to bring it into harmony with the state of feeling in that House and the country, for it would have been very desirable that the head of that Board should have had a seat in that House; but, unfortunately, in this country we ran from one extreme to the other. We upset the old system, and produced a Board which was a perfect sham. He believed if we had a Poor Law Board with a President in that House, and two or three men of ability and comparatively useful energy to deal with the questions that came before them, it

  287
  would obtain the confidence of the country. It was also necessary to have a much better system of selection, training, and promotion of Poor Law officers. Such a thoroughly trained and efficient Department of the Civil Service would attract to itself character, energy, and ability. Perhaps his right hon. Friend might tell the House he could make all the requisite inquiries himself, and no doubt he was competent enough to do so; but what security had they that he would be allowed to remain sufficiently long in his present office to conduct them to a satisfactory result? He thought an efficient Commission would strengthen the hands of his right hon. Friend, and he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for its appointment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the policy and administration of the Poor Law within the Metropolis,"—(Mr. William Henry Smith,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. FAWCETT, who had on the Paper a Notice to extend the inquiry to the United Kingdom, observed that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), that the Poor Law systems of other countries should also be investigated. He knew of no national question of greater consequence than this, for it was one that referred to evils which legislative influence had hitherto failed to remedy; as such, it was, therefore, quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Westminster to make any apology for the introduction of his Motion, on the contrary, he (Mr. Fawcett) thought the House was under great obligation to him for the very able way in which he had treated the subject. It was impossible that a subject of greater importance and interest could be brought before the House; a Budget, although it might decide the fate of a Ministry, was, comparatively speaking, of little consequence. For these reasons, he thought the Royal Commission asked for by his hon. Friend ought to be granted; and if it was, his (Mr. Faw-
  288
  cett's) Amendment ought to be introduced into the subject. What made it of more importance was this—many evils afflicted the land which lay beyond the reach of Parliamentary action; but pauperism was, however, so directly under legislative control that it had grown with the unwisdom and diminished with the wisdom of the House. This was made manifest by history, which also exhibited what evils were to be avoided, and indicated in what direction we must look for reform. Some 300 years ago, indiscriminate almsgiving and voluntary charity were producing so many evils, that a feeling obtained throughout the country that repressive measures ought to be adopted, and during the reigns of Richard II. and succeeding Monarchs a series of statutes were passed, of an extraordinary and rigorous character, for putting an end to indiscriminate and ill-considered charity. But it was discovered that direct discouragement of these evils had not the desired effect; and the celebrated Act of Elizabeth determined to adopt indirect discouragement as the more efficient remedy—on the principle that every one had a claim to relief. Then it appeared that the country had assumed one of the most perilous responsibilities that could be conceived; for the most improvident, imprudent, and thriftless preferred their claim to relief on equal terms with the more worthy class of paupers; and if these responsibilities were not provided with safeguards it was easy to see that a great burden would fall upon the thrifty and industrious poor too heavy for them to bear. These safeguards were brought to bear; by them, voluntary paupers were distinguished from involuntary ones; and as these safeguards came to be strengthened in after years, a most marked diminution took place in the amount of pauperism, a result which was greatly assisted by the Act of 1727, which first imposed the workhouse test. This was borne out by the fact, that, in 1750, when the Elizabethan Act had been in operation for some 150 years, so firmly and wisely had it been administered that there was less pauperism in England than existed in any European country, and the day seemed near when pauperism would be entirely abolished. Unwarned, however, by the experience of the past, the Legislature of the day

  289
  pursued a different policy, which seemed to ignore all the brilliant success already achieved; for by means of a statute called Gilbert's Act, the workhouse test was abolished, a rate in aid was sanctioned, and the Guardians were obliged to provide work as near home as possible for all applicants for relief. And what was the result of this? The whole aspect of the country became changed, and before 70 years had elapsed, instead of England being distinguished among European nations as having less pauperism than any other country, we were burdened with an amount of pauperism which threatened us with national bankruptcy, and jeopardized our chances of recovery, if we had any. It was almost impossible now, even to believe some of the abuses which had grown up under the old Poor Law system. Pauperism became a profession; pauperism was not considered a disgrace. Before the Poor Law Commissioners, in 1834, it was proved that many people actually thought that it would be advantageous to become paupers; and certainly, in one place, it was found that by the allowances which were given to paupers, while the pauper labourers were receiving 16 s. a-week, the ordinary labourer was receiving only 12 s. After the passing of the New Poor Law, in 1834, a radical change was introduced. Its main object was to do away with the allowance system, and to check out-door relief. The idea of the Act was, that out-door relief should be the exception and not the rule, whereas, unfortunately, at present it was the rule, and not the exception. As long as out-door relief was seldom given, a great diminution of pauperism was produced, an evidence of which was given immediately after the passing of the Act of 1834. In 1837, the whole amount spent in this country for the relief of the poor was only £3,500,000. The great evil of the present system was the reckless manner in which out-door relief was given. What did we observe, for instance, in the Metropolis? During nine years, the amount spent in out-door relief had increased by 130 per cent, and in the rural districts, an equally serious increase had occurred. In one Union in Somerset with which he was acquainted, the workhouse had accommodation for 400 paupers; the number of inmates, however, were only 92, whilst at the same time
  290
  there were 1,100 people in receipt of out-door relief. He would now bring before the House some specific facts, which would show that as they extended out-door relief, pauperism increased with inevitable certainty. Everyone who investigated the condition of England, Scotland, and Ireland would conclude that there would be less pauperism in England and Scotland than there was in Ireland, for England and Scotland were both, as shown by the Income Tax Returns, far more wealthy than Ireland, and the average income in England was three times that of Ireland; the average income in Scotland was twice as much. And as a corroboration of that conclusion, it was found that the Scotch who came to England generally made their way prosperously, and seldom claimed parochial relief; but the Irish formed a considerable proportion of the paupers in the large towns of England. From all this they would infer, that there was far less pauperism in England and Scotland than in Ireland, yet, in England, with all its wealth, 1 out of 20 of the population was a pauper; in Scotland, wealthy also, 1 out of 23; while in Ireland, poor and depressed, as they had been told, by a vicious land system,—the country always looked upon as miserable and wretched—only 1 out of 73 was a pauper. England, three times as wealthy, had three times as much pauperism in proportion to her population; while in Scotland the results were still more striking, for the paupers in the Highlands of Scotland exceeded by 12 per cent the paupers in Ulster and Connaught. The explanation of this extraordinary state of things was a very obvious one. In Ireland, until recent years, no out-door relief was given, and it was now very rarely given. In Scotland, although out-door relief was not given to able-bodied labourers, still outdoor relief was given with great recklessness and carelessness; and everyone knew how recklessly the system had been administered in England. It might be said that England inherited pauperism from the defects of its old system; but Scotland and Ireland stood on all-fours, for the Poor Law was introduced into Ireland in 1838, and into Scotland a few years later; and in Ireland, in proportion to population, there was but one-third of the pauperism which existed in Scotland. The fact was, that enter-

  291
  ing the workhouse in England was considered a disgrace, and the poor people made considerable efforts to keep themselves out of it; while receiving outdoor relief was considered not a disgrace, but was looked upon rather as a boon. It was obvious how powerfully this must act on the social condition of the country. In Ireland the feeling of filial obligation was far more powerful than it was in England. If in Ireland a man neglected his aged parent, having the means to support him, he knew as a general rule that the parent went into the workhouse and the son was disgraced; the consequence of this was, sons recognized their duties, and old people were seldom found in workhouses, if their children could by any means keep them out. Contrast this with what existed in England. Let them go to any London clergyman who was intimately acquainted with the condition of the poor, and he would say that one of the most powerful influences of our Poor Law system was, that it not only had absolutely destroyed all the sense of the duty which children owed to their parents, but that thousands of aged people received out-door relief whose children were in a condition to keep them. And then, as said by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), it was impossible for out-door relief, especially in large towns, to be administered with so much care as to prevent a considerble portion going to the impostor. Not long ago a man was summoned at a London police court for wages claimed by his daughter's music master. On referring to the parish books, it was found that the man sued for his daughter's music was in receipt of parochial relief. Another man who was in the receipt of relief was found to be in the enjoyment of an handsome annuity. In another case he had been assured, that an old woman had received parochial relief from two Unions for 10 years after she was dead. The way this was managed was simply that when the relieving officer made his periodical visits, he was constantly told by the daughter that her mother was ill in bed, and he went away perfectly satisfied. It was impossible to devise a scheme of administering out-door relief which would protect you from hypocrisy and imposture, and through that this lesson was constantly brought home to the Indus-
  292
  trial classes of the country—that those who were receiving out-door relief were those who made no effort to help themselves. Could they suggest a remedy for this state of things? Did they propose suddenly to abandon the new Poor Law system, and say that in future no out-door relief should be granted? No one could be rash enough to suggest such a drastic remedy; but he ventured humbly to suggest to the House, that what they ought to do was to diminish out-door relief within the narrowest possible limits. Enough had been done in that direction by an Act passed two years ago by the late President of the Poor Law Board. That Act, however, he was sorry to say, only affected the Metropolis; but, if its operation were extended over the whole country, it would introduce a very important reform. The purport of that Act was simply to throw the cost of in-door relief on the general rates, and the cost of out-door relief a charge on the separate Union. Of course this operated as a great discouragement to out-door relief. He was not in the House when the Union Chargeability Bill was introduced; but he remembered the opposition of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to that measure; and he (Mr. Fawcett) came to the conclusion that, however much different portions of the House might disagree with the right hon. Member's reasons, they would be with him in results. If they extended the area of rating—and this was the great argument against a national poor rate—they pro tanto relaxed their checks upon economy, and he believed that in many instances the result of the Union Chargeability Bill had been this—that each parish had not felt so much interest as it did before in the rigid administration of the Poor Law, and that the result had been a considerable increase of pauperism. Now, these evils might be counteracted if the measure now affecting only the Metropolis were extended to the whole kingdom. There was constant danger that philanthropy and mistaken kindness would bring about some serious evil; as, of course, all the feelings which they most cherished and most honoured would prompt them to liberality to the poor. The President of the Poor Law Board had lately issued an Order relative to the farming out of pauper children,

  293
  which, he thought, would re-introduce many of the evils of the old Poor Law system, and greatly encourage illegitimacy. He referred to this subject with all the more interest because the Press had taken the matter up, and, considering the case as touching the welfare of the children only, they were right; but he (Mr. Fawcett) would take the liberty of presenting the subject in another aspect; and he was also the more anxious to make a few remarks on it, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Westminster. The observations of the hon. Member were singularly characteristic. No one saw more the evils of out-door relief, and the disadvantages of indiscriminate almsgiving, than the hon. Gentleman, and yet he simply viewed the boarding out of children in one aspect, and lost sight entirely of the encouragement it might give to some of the social evils which they ought to be most anxious to check. Every one of these boarded-out children was to be allowed 4s. a-week for his maintenance, and 1s. a-week for his clothes; he was to have gratuitious attendance and schooling; particular injunctions were given that in case of illness he was to have the best medical advice obtainable in the neighbourhood; and if he needed nourishing food it was to be supplied without stint at the expense of the Guardians. Now, he knew a couple in the country whose circumstances he had watched for 25 years, and they were just the kind of persons to whom three of these pauper children would probably be sent. The man was an agricultural labourer; but, although one of the best workmen in England, had never earnt more than 13 s. a-week. He had, however, contrived to bring up a family of six children. Well, when these three children were sent to him, he would receive for their support 15 s. a-week; and then he would find out that there existed a system which never did anything for the thrifty and the prudent, but which gave for the maintenance of three illegitimate children, or three children neglected by drunken parents, 20 per cent more than he was ever able by constant toil to earn for the support of himself, his wife, and his family. He would now give another simple illustration of the present mode of administering out-door relief. Take the case of two agricultural labourers, A and B, who had both lived exactly the same life, as far
  294
  as the opportunities of earning money were concerned, and whose wages were 12 s. a-week. They were both, he would assume, of the same age, married at the same time, and had the same number of children. A, being a prudent man, recognizing the duty and the solemn responsibilty of making some provision for his old age, put aside 2s. a-week and purchased an annuity under the Act passed some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, while the other man was a drunkard and spent every sixpence he could obtain in the publichouse. The result was, that when they had both grown too old for work, A was in possession of an annuity of 5s. per week, while B, having nothing at all, went to the parish and obtained out-door relief for himself and his wife to the extent of 3s., or 3s. 6d. per week. A also went to the parish and asked for only 1s. weekly in order to supplement the 5s. which he had as the result of his own prudence, and to add to his clothing and fuel in the winter time; but the Board, knowing that he was possessed of the small annuity, refused his application—the principle of the Poor Law being to give nothing to the prudent, and all to those who least deserved it. This, he would remind the House, was not a purely hypothetical case, but one of a class that was of almost daily recurrence. Could anyone doubt that such a system must produce demoralization—that £7,000,000 thus distributed was only calculated to increase the habits of pauperism among the poor? Such was the effect actually produced. Not long ago it was proposed in the West of England to start a friendly society for the working classes, and a meeting took place on the subject; but when some one suggested that by subscribing weekly for years to the society they would only receive 5s. a-week, and that the parish would give them almost as much, it was resolved that so long as the membership of friendly or provident societies is a bar to out-door relief, the society should not be established—and it had not been established to that day. But if out-door relief was put an end to—if the result of a life of improvidence was an old age in the workhouse—the poor would be taught the importance of being provident. Another point of the utmost moment was to organize the charity and benevolence

  295
  of the public; because, under the present system of indiscriminate giving, more harm than good was often done. Dr. Hawksley, who examined this subject some years ago, found that the charity annually dispensed in London, amounted to no less than £5,000,000, the larger portion of which went not to help the frugal and industrious, but to encourage the improvident and imprudent. Similar results were arrived at in the course of an inquiry which was instituted subsequently by Mr. Hicks, with the assistance of the proprietors of The Times newspaper. Mr. Hicks investigated the accounts of several London charities, and found that more than 25 per cent of their receipts was swallowed up and wasted in expenses of agents. What was wanted was the man who, not content with subscribing to a charity, took the trouble to personally see that its funds were wisely distributed; such a man did a work of real value. He had been reading that very morning the life of a dear friend of his, Mr. E. Denison, sometime a Member of that House, who had in the noblest manner showed how easy it was to perform, within the limits of a crowded city, acts of heroism as noble as any ever performed on the battle-field. For many months Mr. Denison had lived among the poor of the East-end of London; he knew the secrets of their lives intimately, and his experience confirmed every word that had been urged respecting the evils bred by the present method of distributing Poor Law relief; and he was particularly emphatic on the harm often done by the well-meant but ill-directed charitable efforts of the public. In what had been said in the House on this subject a few nights ago he confessed he had not been convinced by what had fallen from the Prime Minister. The truth was, that it was utterly impossible for any man, however gifted he might be, to know how thoroughly to accomplish the duties of the Poor Law Board until he had held that office for at least a couple of years; and he thought that no statesman could have a nobler field for his ambition or a wider scope for his abilities. He hoped that in the hands of the present head of the Poor Law Board such reforms would be effected as would put the whole system on a sound basis. He regarded the office as one of the utmost importance in the State, and
  296
  he, for one, could not regard it as a promotion for a statesman to be removed from the Poor Law Board to the Admiralty or the War Office. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) had, in addition to his other onerous duties, to deal with financial questions more intricate than those which fell within the domain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How could they compare the work of the President of the Poor Law Board with the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had simply to provide for a deficiency of £2,800,000? There were only two or three ways of doing that, and it required no great statesmanship of those methods to select the worst. They had heard a great deal about the fear of foreign invasion, and had incurred an enormous expenditure to ward off the danger. They had had debates, night after night, on that subject, and he would contrast the state of the benches, when the interests of a party were concerned, with the state of the House when a great social problem was under discussion. He maintained that there was in our midst, and permeating down deep into our social life, a danger much more serious than any that was likely to arise from foreign invasion. Would anyone pretend that the safety of the country, or her material prosperity could be secured, that social cohesion could be guaranteed, or the moral welfare of the people be promoted, while 1 out of every 20 of the population was a pauper? This was a subject that required unswerving firmness on the part of a statesman. We should all like to relieve distress if we could; but the experience of the past told us what a fearful price we should have to pay if this distress were not relieved with judgment, care, and discretion. In one sentence, he would venture to say that this should be the end and aim of the House and of the statesman who had to administer the Poor Law Department—that we should reverse what had been the policy of the past; that we should do something more for the frugal and the thrifty, and afford as little assistance as we could to those who would do nothing to help themselves.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that it did not often fall to the lot of the House to listen to speeches so interesting, and, he might add, so eloquent as those which had been delivered that evening. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster

  297
  (Mr. W. H. Smith), who commenced the debate, had addressed them in a speech of considerable, though not of too great, length—a speech full of philosophy and thought, going to the root of the question of pauperism and the method in which it should be dealt with; and though the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman might have led him to conclusions that might seem to be harsh, everyone who knew the hon. Gentleman knew that that was not the result of any want of sympathy for the poor. The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), too, was one full of sympathy for the poor, but full also of a positive philosophy upon the subject of Poor Law relief, and the policy which ought to govern its administration. He must at once say that he did not rise for the purpose of endeavouring to reply to, much less to refute, speeches with which he had so much sympathy, and from which he was certain in the future to derive so much benefit and advantage. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster had taken the very widest ground; he had commenced by denying the proposition which was the basis of our English law—that there was a right on the part of every individual to Poor Law relief. His hon. Friend, however, acknowledged the existence of a duty from the State towards the poor, and, if that were so, the correlative right on the part of the poor could hardly be denied. But his hon. Friend had addressed some statistics and figures to the House, and he began in 1860—the date from which might be said to have arisen our most modern administration of the Poor Laws of the country. His hon. Friend appeared to have been led into the belief that the legislation of the last few years had been rather to administer to pauperism than to check or cure it. Upon that proposition, it was his duty to take issue. He should not be doing justice to the policy of the Board, over whose proceedings he now presided, if he did not attempt to prove to the satisfaction of his hon. Friend, that the figures which he brought under the attention of the House, showing the increase of pauperism in the Metropolis, and the increase in the cost, did not prove, and ought not to be held to suggest, that our recent policy was such as his hon. Friend appeared to fear. His hon. Friend had stated, with perfect accuracy, that in the
  298
  year 1860, the mean number of poor relieved in the Metropolis was 86,000, and that the total cost was £796,423. Then, his hon. Friend showed that in 1870, the number relieved was no less than 145,044, and that the cost of the relief amounted to £1,465,000. These were startling figures; but he hoped to be able to show that, though recent legislation might deliberately, and for good reasons, have increased the amount of relief afforded, it was not in any way responsible for the increase of pauperism in London. He would take the year 1866. There was a panic in that year, and it was also about the time that the Union Chargeability Act was passed, which altered the area of chargeability from the parish to the Union, and reduced the period for acquiring irremovability in London from three years to one. In 1866, the total in-door paupers were 30,431; in 1867, 33,063. In 1866, the total number of out-door paupers was 71,902; in 1867, 99,040, showing a total of 102,333 in 1866 and of 132,103 in 1867; or an increase of 30,000 upon those relieved in the preceding year. That increase, as before observed, was due to the panic and the Union Chargeability Act. From that time, the numbers of in-door paupers varied but slightly: in 1867, they numbered 33,063; in 1868, 34,952; in 1869, 35,025; in 1870, 34,998; and in 1871, 34,532. The expenditure had doubtless increased in consequence of these changes; but in the main that was due to the great improvements in the construction of the buildings for the accommodation of our in-door paupers, and the greater kindness and liberality with which they were treated. The out-door paupers in the last week of April, 1866, numbered 71,902; in 1867, 99,040; in 1868, 104,263; in 1869, 106,939; in 1870, 110,423; but in the year 1871 they were again reduced to 98,017. The totals were as follows: In 1867, the year immediately following the operation of the Union Chargeability Act, but before the Metropolitan Poor Act was passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), the total was 132,103; in 1868, 139,215; in 1869, 141,964; in 1870, 145,421; and in 1871, the total fell to 132,549, identical within a few hundreds with the numbers which obtained at the time the Metropolitan Poor Act was passed. He

  299
  gave these figures for the purpose of satisfying his hon. Friend and the House that the policy of the Committee to which he had referred, and which reported in 1864, and the policy of the Poor Law Department, under the powers conferred by the Act of 1867, had not tended to increase pauperism, and he he should endeavour to show that so far as it had tended to increase expense, that increase of expense had sufficient justification. His object was to show that whatever might be the effect of the very wide question his hon. Friend had raised of the dangers of conceding the right of poor people to receive relief, and whatever there might be—and he thought there was a great deal—in the view of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), as to the dangers of a system of out-door relief, at any rate as far as the recent policy of the Poor Law administration was concerned, they had done much to improve the condition of pauper inmates, while they had done nothing to increase the expense of out-door relief. The object of the Act of 1867 was to attempt to promote the best possible classification of pauper inmates, for the purpose of dealing more advantageously with them; and of obtaining a greater power of dealing subsequently, when the time should come, with a proper administration of out-door relief. The proposals of the Act were—that hospitals should be erected; that workhouses should be cleared of certain classes of paupers; that hospitals should be managed on the best possible principles, for the cure of harmless lunatics, and the victims of fever and small-pox; that children should be removed from the corrupting influences of workhouse life; and having cleared the workhouses of these classes, that those who remained should be classified and sub-divided; and, above all, that the difficult problem of out-door relief might be dealt with by, as far as possible, offering the workhouse test. In pursuance of the purposes of that Act, hospitals and asylums had been erected, district asylums and infirmaries had been erected, separate schools had been put up, the number of the ordinary workhouses had been reduced, and, in some cases, the system of classification had been attempted. The right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him in the Poor Law Board had enlarged the Unions, and the number, instead of
  300
  being 36, was now reduced to 30; so that the Department had been operating, under the powers of the Act of 1867, at least, in the direction in which his hon. Friends who had spoken desired it to go. The time had, therefore, now come when the Department required to address itself to two questions. First of all, the classification of the poor who were to remain in the workhouse, so as to provide the best accommodation; and, secondly, the great and difficult question of the administration of out-door relief. Some suggestions had been made tonight upon these subjects, and the suggestions offered would receive his most attentive consideration. He would be only too glad to receive and welcome any assistance which any hon. Member would at any time do him the honour to render him. No doubt there was something complex in the conditions of the Poor Law problem; but there was no clashing in the administration of the Poor Law. His hon. Friend had commented on the vagueness of the powers of the Poor Law Board; but those powers were at least not insufficient, and perhaps their vagueness accounted for their comprehensiveness. The hon. Member while suggesting a policy that had been to a considerable extent followed out—that of a larger area for in-door administration—had also suggested smaller areas for the administration of out-door relief. Upon that question he declined to express an opinion; the Board, however, was increasing the number of relieving officers, was improving their pay, and was still carrying out the uniform policy of the Board since 1834 of limiting the out-door relief to a minimum. The system was not yet in complete working order; but he agreed that as far as possible where out-door relief was afforded, it should be sufficient, and should in no case be given without full inquiry. Upon the question of boarding out children, he was not prepared to express a definite opinion at present. The system was being tried, and its results were being carefully watched. The objection to the system raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), that the pauper child boarded out would be more cared for than the child of the poor labourer, was a necessary characteristic of the system, and the objection applied with equal force to district schools. Had his hon. Friend

  301
  no faith in those instincts of human nature which induced people to prefer liberty to restraint and the family relations to isolation from their own kindred? Would it not be wiser to place some reliance on these feelings than, from any chimerical or exaggerated fears, to deprive orphan, destitute, and neglected children of the advantages of the care which our Poor Law administration now afforded them? The hon. Member for Westminster had not, he thought, quite done justice to their district schools, although he spoke of their admirable management, and the great kindliness of all connected with them. The hon. Member had quoted the opinion of Mr. Henley—one of their ablest Inspectors—to the effect that there was something in the restraint and the formalities of a large school which stunted, so to say, the physical as well as the moral and intellectual growth of the children, and that a child would benefit by being placed in inferior but more natural conditions. The restraints and formalities of a large school were not, however, found to stunt the physical, moral, and intellectual growth of boys in middle class schools; and he could not see why their effect should be so different in the case of the children in those district schools. Having himself visited one of those district schools the other day, he was much impressed with the good order, the cleanliness, and the sense of freedom and happiness on the faces of the children, as well as with the kindness of those who administered the school. But, amid all that feeling of satisfaction and almost of delight, there came into his mind something of a different and very depressing character—namely, the reflection that he was contemplating a great mass of young humanity, of whom he was tempted to say that, in great part, it might have been better had it never been born; and he was compelled to regard it as a matter of doubt whether the greatest care of their moral, intellectual, and physical health and growth could redeem them from the stain, the difficulty, and the drawback of a bad origin, and an originally poor, physical, and mental organization. He thought his hon. Friend had overlooked the fact that the children in their metropolitan district schools came from the very poorest physical stock of the country, that their genealogy itself was
  302
  of the very worst, and that if they compared them with the offspring of the ordinary day labourer, or even, it might be, with the pauper child in the rural districts, they compared two beings who started in life with very different attributes, physical and intellectual, and possibly moral. While saying he could not entirely concur in their opinions, he hoped he had shown that he did not undervalue the suggestion contained in the thoughtful and admirable speeches addressed to the House by his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Westminster had spoken not only of the increased numbers, but of the increased cost in the Metropolis, and seemed to be under the impression that the increased cost was very considerable in the administration of out-door relief. The true figures, which he would give the House, showed that their very great increase of expenditure had not been in the administration of out-door relief—although that had increased—but in providing admirable and commodious buildings, hospitals, asylums, and schools, and in administering them by a class of officers superior to, and better paid than, those formerly employed. In 1860 the total cost of the relief of the poor in London was £796,000, and in t870 it had risen to nearly double that amount, or to £1,475,000. On analyzing those figures, it would be found that in-maintenance had risen gradually from £260,000 in 1860 to £420,000 in 1870. He had shown that there was no considerable increase in the number of indoor paupers; but in-maintenance included the charge for the care of the sick; and the great increase of expense arose first of all from the increased price of provisions since 1860, and next from the very much greater care now bestowed on the sick, and the additional comforts afforded them. The cost of out-relief had risen from £200,000 in 1860 to £413,000 in 1870, and the numbers from 86,000 to 132,000. If he were to take the year 1867, he could show that the numbers had not at all increased, although there was a certain increase in the charge for out-maintenance, which might be attributed in some degree to the cost of medical outdoor relief. The maintenance of lunatics—an expenditure which could not well be said to be incurred in ministering to habits of pauperism—had increased from £89,000 to £170,000. The item

  303
  of repayment of workhouse loans had risen from £47,000 in 1860 to £93,000 in 1870; and there had been a great rise in the charge for salaries and rations of officers—namely, from £88,000 in 1860 to £148,000 in 1870, as, under the policy of the Act of 1867, they had considerably increased the number of nurses and relieving officers. In 1860 the number of relieving officers was 102; and in 1870 it was 161. In 1860 the salaries paid amounted to £12,976; in 1870 they had risen to £20,108, showing an increase of £7,132. In 1860 the number of nurses was 246; in 1870 it was 354, and the salaries paid rose from £4,520 to £7,280. The miscellaneous expenses of relief had also increased from £112,000 to £231,000 in the same period. He should be the last person to say there was not ample subject-matter for inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law, whether in the Metropolis or in the country at large. The speeches made that night were full of suggestions for further inquiry. He granted the advisability of inquiry; but he would say that the Poor Law Board was itself a Commission, and that its functions were not merely administrative, but also for inquiring. The House had to deal either with principles and policy, or with the observance and collation of facts; and as far as principles and policy were concerned, why should they resort to a Royal Commission? What Royal Commissioner was likely to address to them in his Report a more exhaustive and philosophical statement of principles and general policy than had fallen from the hon. Member for Westminster or the hon. Member for Brighton that evening? And was it not the undoubted fact that the House possessed, in a remarkable degree, the faculty and the knowledge necessary to the discussion of the principles and the policy which should guide the administration of the Poor Laws in this country? Therefore, instead of the House handing over its functions, or asking him to hand over his as an administrator, to a Royal Commission, let them take common counsel on those questions of policy, and work them out for themselves. Then, as to the observance and collation of facts, the Department had abundant means and power—which he had every willingness to use and exercise—for making any inquiries, whether in the
  304
  Metropolis or in the United Kingdom, or abroad, which might be found necessary or expedient for the elucidation of questions in which they were all so deeply interested. Though he could not concur in the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, he trusted his hon. Friend would accept the Poor Law Board as his Commission, and he invited him to co-operate with that Board in the inquiries he might think it advisable to make. If he would do so, he would accept his counsel willingly, and would work with him heartily for the purpose of securing so good an object, which they both desired to effect.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that having had occasion to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board on various matters connected with the Poor Law, he must bear his testimony to the great ability and earnestness with which that right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the task which lay before him. There could be no doubt the frequent change of the head of that Department had caused much delay in carrying out many necessary improvements, as evidenced by the fact that the Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University was passed in 1867, and but for the frequent changes to which he had referred, the valuable reforms proposed in that Bill would have long ago been carried into effect, and no doubt would have resulted in a vast improvement in the administration of the Poor Law. The present First Lord of the Admiralty had expressed some little alarm at the great increase of expenditure which would be occasioned if the proposals of that Bill were carried out, and had in consequence postponed some buildings which would otherwise have been long since completed; but this delay had been useful in one point, for the result had shown that temporary hospitals, such as that which now occupied the ground at Hampstead, were quite as efficient and valuable as more permanent ones. With regard to dispensaries, the last Report of the Poor Law Board showed that the dispensary system was by no means complete; and, in this respect also, there might have been a more active carrying out of the Bill of his right hon. Friend; he thought, therefore, it was too soon, as yet, to form any fair judgment as to how far

  305
  the provisions of that Bill were sufficient to deal with metropolitan pauperism. He did not deny the increase in the numbers receiving relief, and in the amount spent both in the Metropolis and the country, nor was he prepared to say that very considerable changes ought not to be brought about in our present system; but it appeared to him that the fault was not so much in the Poor Law itself as in its administration; for, whenever it had a fair chance, and had been properly worked, it carried out its object as well as any human institution could be expected to do. He admitted the complaint of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), as to the want of uniformity which prevailed with regard to indoor relief in the Metropolis, in such matters as the cost of provisions and other important details; but it was hardly possible where any discretion was left to the Guardians that perfect uniformity in such matters could exist. At the same time, he by no means said that the prices of provisions were regulated as they ought to be; on the contrary, he feared there was too often not only carelessness, but something worse, in the contracts that were made by the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis. With regard to out-door relief, he thought the districts which had been formed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, by uniting together various Unions and parishes, were too large for that purpose. In November, 1869, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) issued a Circular to various Boards of Guardians, in which he spoke of the obligation imposed upon them by the Poor Law to give what he called "adequate relief" in all cases coming under their jurisdiction; but when he was asked to define "adequate relief" he very wisely shrunk from the task. It was there the great difficulty existed, and it was only by a proper distribution of "adequate relief" that the present state of things could be remedied. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought that, in order to secure this, small districts were absolutely necessary. In a particular parish which became notorious four years ago, in connection with Poor Law matters, there had since been a vast improvement in the management of it by the Guardians, owing mainly, he believed, to the valuable exertions of one gentleman. Unfortunately, however, ideas of an adverse character having lately pre-
  306
  vailed, the advice of that gentleman was set aside, and the consequence was, as he was informed, the vast increase of the weekly expense for out-door relief from £200 to £400. What was wanted was a proper inquiry into the case of every applicant for relief, so as to make it certain that the money given was not doled away among a number of undeserving persons, but that every person who ought to be relieved was sufficiently relieved. He found, from the last Poor Law Report, that the annual cost of the maintenance of each pauper in the workhouse was £9 16 s., or 3s. 9d. per week. The average sum given to each case as out-door relief was £4 5s. a-year. The real evil was that too many cases were relieved, and the amount of relief given in each particular case was inadequate. In the country, a single pauper who applied for relief received, perhaps, a couple of loaves and from 1s. 6d. to 2s. in money, per week, which was obviously inadequate; but that relief was supplemented by charity, which the Guardians knew, and, therefore, they were disposed to give less than they otherwise would. The workhouse test, which was the corner-stone of the Poor Law, could not now be enforced in the Metropolis and some other large towns. It was worthy of consideration, whether it might not be possible in the Metropolis to issue the out-door relief prohibitory order with the power to the Guardians of suspending it in a particular district in the event of exceptional distress. Pauperism was much encouraged by a too great readiness on the part of Boards of Guardians throughout the country to grant out-door relief. On the other hand, some must be given. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), though he did not wish to put a stop all at once to out-door relief, thought it might be diminished, and even possibly be extinguished. But in that case, there would be instances of death from starvation, which would lead to indiscriminate charity, and the evil caused thereby would be greater than was caused by the administration of outdoor relief. Moreover, the principle that every man in this country had a right to relief, if he required it, was a great social safeguard, and had much to do with the fact that for the last 50 years and more England had been free from the social movements and revolutions which had so often occurred in other

  307
  countries of Europe. The Hon. Member (Mr. Fawcett) had pointed out the enormous difference between the out-relief in Ireland and in England. Mr. Lambert, who was entitled to speak with authority upon this matter, stated before the Committee on the Scotch Poor Law that England, with a population of nearly 22,000,000 and a rateable value of £100,000,000, had a maximum number of paupers in 1868, comprising in the workhouses 168,000, and out of the workhouses 878,000; while Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000, and a rateable value of £13,000,000, had 62,000 paupers in and only 19,600 out of the workhouses. The total relief in England, in-door and out-door, was £7,673,000; in Ireland, only £829,000, including the sums paid under the Medical Charities Act. The rate in the pound in England was 1s. 6d., in Ireland 1s. 1d. The rate per head of the population in England was over 7s., in Ireland only 3s. Yet, upon the best information which Mr. Lambert could obtain, the condition of those who received out-relief in England and Ireland was much the same, and the more stringent administration of the Poor Law in Ireland was carried on with due regard to the interests of the paupers. Though he did not wish to see out-relief brought down to a minimum point, he thought much might be done to put the two countries more on a par in this respect. It was no doubt a very serious evil that the law, so far from encouraging the working classes to be provident, should, by making a provision for every destitute person, actually discourage providence. At the same time, the question was a most difficult one, and he suggested that where a person proved that he had subscribed to a good friendly society for a certain number of years, and would be entitled, in case of illness, to sick pay, he should be allowed a certain amount of relief without the application of the workhouse test. He regretted that he could not vote with the hon. Member (Mr. W. H. Smith) for this Commission, as he did not think the proposed inquiry was necessary, for this reason—the evil was rather in the administration of the law than in the law itself, or the policy of the law, and he did not believe that either inquiry or legislation would put a stop to pauperism. What Parliament should do, was by every possible means to encourage habits
  308
  of providence, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would but turn his attention to that object, besides carrying out in other points the improvements which Parliament had already sanctioned, he was of opinion that there would be very little to complain of in the administration of the Poor Law.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the complexity of the subject before the House would have prevented his taking part in the debate had not a life-long experience in the practical operation of the Poor Law in the Metropolis led him to a definite conviction that the Poor Law had failed to grapple with the pauperism of the country, or to produce any sensible effect in diminishing its amount or preventing its extension among the people. The real difficulty of the whole question lay in the fact that while the material prosperity of the country had of late years greatly increased, pauperism had not abated so as in any way to indicate that pauperism bore any definite relation to the means the nation possessed of producing and accumulating wealth. Take the imports and exports of the year 1869, as given in the Statistical Abstract of 1870, the former amounting to £295,400,000, and the latter, the exports, to £190,000,000; whereas, in 1860, the imports were £210,500,000, and the exports £135,890,000, in round numbers, or well nigh £85,000,000 more of the value of imports, and above £54,000,000 more of the value of exports. Whilst the income of the country is under-estimated at £879,000,000, as might be learned partly from the Return moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley), and partly by the estimates of gentlemen who might be deemed experts in these calculations. The estimate in respect of lands being given for the year ending 1870, as £133,478,000; that in respect of occupation of lands, £37,447,700; professions and trades and railway returns, £161,594,000; and from public offices, £22,110,858. The estimate of incomes under £200 a-year is given at only £120,000,000, and the manual wages at £370,000,000. The figures adduced, undoubtedly raised the amount of the national income very considerably above the estimate given and accepted by the House in a late debate, and indicated an increase which might be reasonably expected to mark an era of

  309
  material prosperity; but the pauperism of the year 1869 had shown no decrease in comparison with former years taken in quinquennial average, but a very large increase. There was something, then, the country had to deal with which the Poor Law had not reached, and that was the spirit of pauperism. There was something to be taught that the Poor Law had not attempted to impart to the humbler classes—namely, a distaste for a state of dependence. The way in which the difficulty must be grappled with was by picking out from the general mass of paupers those who were on the sick-list, those who were mentally incapable, temporarily disabled, or incapable from age, whether from one or the other extreme. Up to that point the Poor Law had advanced. These eliminated, a residiuum would be left, and what was to be done with it? He was prepared with a solution. We should educate our pauper classes in habits of industry and progress; and that was to be done, not by the application of the workhouse test, as at present, but by making our workhouses instrumental to the employment of paupers in useful and profitable labour, and thus training them in habits of foresight and discipline. The course he proposed was not deterrent, but educational. He had no faith in the deterrent course—in the attempt to disgust the dependent poor by the offensiveness and uselessness of the task imposed. The sullen temper induced by the workhouse test, as such, was repulsive to the better instincts of the man, and tended to harden in him the spirit of pauperism. It lacked the stimulus of hope, the conviction of usefulness, which the sight and interest of progress fostered; it was essentially repellant and paralyzing. The two main objections to the useful employment of the dependent poor were—first, the competition thereby offered to the self-supporting labouring classes; and the second was the fear lest dependence, robbed of its deterrent character, should be fostered. Neither objection appeared to him valid. Work capable of competing with free labour would soon produce a conviction of its worth in the producer, and generate emulation and foster a spirit of independence incompatible with the spirit of pauperism, and the restraint, discipline, and habits of control which the carrying out of the system of reproduc-
  310
  tive labour would necessitate, whilst it weakened the habits of thriftlessness and intemperance which lay at the root of pauperism, would render the restraint, companionship, and taint of pauperism distasteful, or even intolerable. He was convinced that for the adult able-bodied pauper labour was the most important element in education. It was, perhaps, the only true and reliable means of education; but we must supply profitable occupations if we intended really to educate our paupers, for there was no education in employment which was not profitable and useful.
  MR. KENNAWAYsaid, that the spread of pauperism had been variously ascribed to be attributed to ignorance, intemperance, and indiscriminate charity. Mr. C. Villiers, in 1832, said that while every other cause had been investigated, the sickness of the poor, which was a large element in its production that had been almost entirely overlooked. It was no doubt the doctor's bill that broke the working man's back; for when sickness came, despair frequently intervened, and the family from being independent sank into the mire of pauperism. Very often illness passed from disorder to disease, and the ratepayers had to suffer from the neglect of medical appliances, or in the delay that arose in bringing them to bear on the sickness of the poor; so they should first look and see if their arrangements for the prevention of disease were satisfactory; and, secondly, whether the appliances for checking disease were such as were worthy of a great country. With regard to the first point, they had the Report of the Sanitary Commission, which had made inquiry, and some of whose recommendations were embodied in a Bill before the House; and with regard to the second—namely, the provision for medical relief, they yearly expended upon it a sum of £282,000, and they had a numerous body of educated and laborious men throughout the country, whose business it was to see that medical relief was properly given. That might seem to be an adequate provision; but remembering that there was a population of 22,000,000 to be dealt with, they had to consider whether it was adequate. The proportion in which medical men were to be appointed, as recognized by the Poor Law, was one to every 15,000 inhabitants—one to every 15,000 acres; but there were 65 districts

  311
  where that acreage had been greatly exceeded, and 205 districts where the population was over 15,000; 98 medical men had from 15,000 to 20,000 inhabitants to attend to; 48, from 20,000 to 25,000; 28, from 29,000 to 30,000; and 31, with more than 30,000 inhabitants to attend to. Their average salary was stated by the Poor Law Board to be £68, though, according to others, it was only £49 or £50, and with midwifery and accident fees, it probably amounted to £100 per annum, and out of that they had to provide drugs. The class who accepted these appointments were mostly young men who wished to get some private practice, and very often the interests of the poor were sacrificed to that desire; he, however, thought they did their duty as far as they could; but the widespread evil was, that a sufficient provision was not made for the large number of people who were dependent upon them for medical assistance. The medical profession were not themselves satisfied with their position in the matter, and were demanding that an inquiry into the whole subject should be set on foot. It was stated by the Earl of Devon, the late President of the Poor Law Board, in his evidence before the Sanitary Commission last year, that there were not a few cases of neglect of paupers, the preference of these medical men being given to private patients. Reference had been made to the case of Ireland, and it was necessary to show the difference between the English and the Irish systems of medical relief in order to account for the difference in the results. In Ireland, where for the last 20 years medical relief had been administered under the Medical Charities Act, with the greatest success, there were two Commissioners—medical men of not less than 10 years' standing—appointed to act with the Poor Law Commissioners, and medical inspectors of not less than seven years' standing, and none of those medical gentlemen were allowed to practise privately. But the chief point in the trial system was, that the Unions were all divided into dispensary districts, in which relief was administered by committees formed of the ratepayers in conjunction with the Guardians, drugs and medical attendance being provided, and medical help brought home as it were to the people. The medical man also served as public vaccinator, and as registrar of
  312
  births and deaths. The working of this system had been most satisfactory, as under it the small-pox had been kept away from Ireland almost entirely, and the system itself had been declared by a very high medical authority, Dr. Cameron, the professor of hygiene in Dublin, to be the most admirable one for providing medical relief to the poor existing in Europe. Whereas the number of cases of preventible fevers that occurred annually in England was one in 190, in Ireland they were only one in 308; and while the cost of administering the system was only 3s., or, perhaps, even less, per head of the population in the latter country, it was 7s. in the former. That was a startling difference, accruing from the better health of the people, in which this sanitary organization was so large an element. It might be said, however, that the difference arose from the difference between the two countries; that people in England were crowded together in densely-populated towns, and suffered from many other matters unfavourable to health which were not to be found in Ireland. But he would compare the two towns of Newcastle and Belfast as a fair test. Newcastle had a population of 110,968, while Belfast had a population of 144,000. In Newcastle there were eight medical officers, in Belfast 18; in Newcastle the amount expended on medical relief was £853, in Belfast it was £3,700; but the total amount spent in relief in Newcastle was £43,000, while in Belfast it was only £22,000. Why, then, should not the Irish system be tried as an experiment in certain parts of this country at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer; and if it were found successful, why should it not be adopted for the whole of the country? With regard to reducing the rates by diminishing the amount of out-door relief, results had shown that the out-door relief system was very shortsighted and very disastrous. In certain Unions with which he was acquainted £9 was spent in out-door relief to £1 spent in the workhouse, and in one Union the proportion was £12 to £1. In one Union 20 persons received out-door relief to one who went into the workhouse, and in another Union the proportion was 26 to 1. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had alleged that the enormous disproportion between the sum expended upon out-door as compared with in-door

  313
  relief was occasioned by the fact that the poor relief was administered by the employers of labour, who endeavoured to make poor relief supplement wages; but that this allegation was erroneous was clear from the fact that similar results occurred in London, where such a cause did not exist. The statement which had been made to-night was very depressing; but, at the same time, with the organization of charity and the help of the Poor Law, he thought they might look hopefully on the future. Under all the circumstances, he thought a fair case had been made out in favour of granting the Inquiry which was asked for.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he would express no opinion on the merits of the Motion for an inquiry in the Metropolis; but, as to the Amendment for extending it to the United Kingdom, he was opposed to including Scotland, for an inquiry had been going on before a Committee of this House for two Sessions, which must have exhausted the question. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had contrasted the burden of the poor rates in Ireland and Scotland, greatly to the disadvantage of the latter. His figures may have been quite correct; but they were calculated, without explanation, to leave an erroneous impression. Ireland paid 3s. a-head of poor rate, and Scotland about 5s. 6d. Now, Scotland must be greatly richer than Ireland, because a Return on the Table of the House showed that every family in Scotland paid double the amount of national taxes which everyone in Ireland paid. Why, then, should there be comparatively so many poor in Scotland? The reason was that, in addition to supporting her own poor, Scotland had to a large extent to support the poor of Ireland. Petitions lately presented from Glasgow and Edinburgh showed the working of the two Poor Law systems. He would state that in Ireland the relief was almost exclusively given in the Poor Law Union Houses, and in Scotland mainly by out-door relief; that in the Irish poorhouses the paupers were badly fed, and, besides, disliked going into them; that they came over to Scotland and England and got out-door relief, which they greatly preferred; and that the city parish of Glasgow alone paid, according to their Petition, £3,200 last year for the
  314
  relief of Irish poor who had no proper claim on that parish. He must also explain that a Bill was now before the House to increase this evil by making Irish poor legally chargeable, who resided in England and Scotland, by a six months' residence, and he called on the Government to declare to-night whether they would support or oppose this Bill, which he considered most unjust to England and Scotland. That Bill did not contain a clause—and it would be a mere mockery if it did—providing that there should be reciprocity on that subject with reference to the English or Scotch poor who resided in Ireland, for there were few such. He would next advert to the boarding out of children, and could say it had originated in Edinburgh, and had worked admirably. These poor children were visited regularly by Inspectors and members of the parochial boards; they attended the same school as other families in the district, and were practically adopted by the parents of the latter children, with whom they were boarded as their own. Finally, when they grew up to manhood or womanhood, they were in no way to be distinguished from the mass of the population. In regard to the great number of poor in the Highland parishes, this was mainly owing to the clearances still going on, although they were supposed to have ended a quarter of a century ago. Men were displaced for sheep and deer. For example, in Sutherland it appeared from the Census results published a few days since that, in place of the natural increase of population of about 12 per cent during the 10 years, there was a falling off of 4 per cent below the Census of 1861; and there was a similar decrease in Caithness and some other counties. The poor who did not emigrate were driven to the villages on the coast, where they could not possibly earn a living, and hence they were forced to come upon the poor rates, thereby increasing them, in some of those parishes, to as much as 5s. in the pound. In conclusion, he would urge that while discussing the principles on which outdoor and in-door relief should be administered, they must not lose sight of the fact that they should always have the poor with them, and that they would not be doing their duty by forcing them into large poorhouses, breaking up all their home associations; but that they

  315
  should act in a spirit of Christian sympathy for the really deserving and unfortunate poor.
  MR. HARYEY LEWIS, while thanking the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for having brought this question before the House, observed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was one which could not be resisted, because he held that the poverty of the Metropolis greatly depended on the poverty of the country. In his opinion, legislation had the effect of inducing paupers to resort to the Metropolis, in the belief that, if once they got there, they would at all events find means of subsistence. The Houseless Poor Act, passed a few Sessions ago, was most difficult of operation. Every humane man was anxious to give food and shelter to the destitute; but it unfortunately happened that many professional destitutes habitually visited the Metropolis, and refused to do anything in return for the relief given to them. The subject as to how far the country was responsible for the poverty of London, and how far the poverty of London was due to itself, was one well worthy of consideration by the Commission which he hoped would be appointed. The Commission might also inquire how far it was desirable to control the power of Guardians, who being directly charged with the relief of the poor were placed in an anomalous position. Elected by the ratepayers—whose interests he felt bound to consult—a Poor Law Guardian had very little power and great responsibility. Again, whenever a case of hardship occurred, the complaint to the Poor Law Board, and any investigation that might follow, were attended with so much red tape, that the conduct of an official, however improper, could not possibly be fully ascertained by the Board without much, difficulty and loss of time. The House ought not only to consider the interests of the poor, but the interests of the poor rate payers. He did not believe that they were anxious to shirk their responsibility; but they considered that they ought to have some share in the distribution of the funds which they contributed. He could not see any valid objection to the appointment of a Commission, which would be an enormous advantage to the Poor Law Board itself; and a great responsibility would
  316
  be taken off their shoulders if the House acceded to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he agreed in the main with the last speaker. He thought they must recognize the fact that the Poor Law Board itself was in course of being tested, and that the experiment was a complete failure; moreover, he believed that while the present principle obtained of a central body, which knew nothing, ignoring the feelings and actions of local bodies, who knew everything, of the subject in question no other result would be attainable. He objected strongly to the continuance of a system which, established 30 or 40 years ago, had been matured by means of measures which had settled and concentrated the whole power of the administration in the Poor Law Board sitting in London, and had superseded the powers of local Boards of Guardians—a proceeding which had never been acquiesced in by the country.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was old enough to recollect the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act. From time to time, great complaints had been made, and much suffering had been felt by the poor who ought to have received relief, but, in too many instances, had been unable to obtain it; whilst, on the other hand, the ratepayers objected to the abuses of the system of out-door relief. Since the Act had come into operation, the Guardians and local authorities had been perpetually at war with the Poor Law Board. In his opinion, that continual strife had now come to a crisis, and the question arose—How was that uncomfortable state of things to be put an end to? The Guardians and the Poor Law Board were always quarrelling; and amidst the disputes which had been going on, the pauper population were continually complaining, particularly with respect to out-door relief. On the passing of the Act, it was laid down that no out-door relief was to be given; but that rule, if universally applied, was considered a most inhuman and bad policy, and when the Guardians began to be more humane, they were checked by the governing authorities, and disagreeable contests arose. Outdoor relief was given in some parishes, whilst it was refused in others, and the Poor Law Board were sometimes called upon to say, whether they would sanc-

  317
  tion that which was contrary to the law. Another serious question had arisen with respect to the employment of the medical officers—or what he would call the hiring of medical men, at a miserably small salary, or stipend, or wages for attending large numbers of poor people who were called paupers. He did not say that the Guardians had not been frequently to blame, but the Poor Law Board had encouraged them in this niggardly economy; and the medical profession had been partially, if not entirely, degraded, and no one could doubt that the poor suffered from that degradation. He was quite at a loss to conceive why the proposed inquiry should not be granted. Who could say whether these two Resolutions, the principal Motion and the Amendment, ought to be opposed? Just mark what they were—
  "To call attention to the operation of the Poor Law within the metropolis; and move an Address for a Royal Commission to inquire into the policy and the administration of the Law;"
  and then the hon. Member for Brighton said the same evils prevailed throughout the kingdom as existed in the Metropolis, and he proposed to add the words "in the United Kingdom." Ought not the disputes between the Poor Law Board, the Guardians, and the recipients of relief to be inquired into and settled? He thought they ought to be; and he cared very little whether the means were a Committee of the House of Commons or a Royal Commission.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Westminster to withdraw the Motion, since he had effected the purpose for which he had made it, by drawing attention to the working of the Poor Law in the Metropolis. The speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) must have satisfied the hon. Member that he might safely leave the question in the hands of the Poor Law Board. With regard to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M. Chambers), it was not right to assume that the Poor Law Board and Boards of Guardians were constantly battling. On the contrary, Boards of Guardians generally looked upon the Poor Law Board as a friend and adviser in cases of difficulty. There might be instances in which the Board had to use a controlling influence over Guardians, and it was quite right that such an authority should, exist, because
  318
  the Board were created for the purpose of controlling expenditure and the mode in which relief should be given; while, as to the utility of the Board, he might mention that, in 1834, they reduced the poor rates from £7,000,000 to £4,500,000. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) complained that Boards of Guardians were not allowed to appoint their own officers without consulting the Board; but in 1867, a General Order was issued, allowing Boards of Guardians, apart from the Metropolis, to appoint subordinate officers and fix their salaries without reference to the Poor Law Board. In the matter of out-door relief, it appeared from a Report sent in in 1869, to the Poor Law Board, that while Liverpool had 21 relieving officers, and Manchester nearly the same number, St. Pancras, with a population of 98,000, had only one relieving officer and five assistants. Bethnal Green, with a population of 105,000, had only three officers; and Shoreditch, with a population of 120,000, had only two officers and a paid clerk. It was impossible to carry out a proper system of out-door relief without having a sufficient number of relieving officers; and, according to this comparison, London was certainly not sufficiently supplied. Another desirable amendment of the London system would be, to secure a proper periodical revision of the list of out-door paupers, either by a committee or by the Board itself. This alone would produce a large reduction of expenditure. The hon. Member for Westminster had stated that the number of out-door paupers in London on the 1st of January, 1870, was 121,000, and of in-door 31,000. But the 121,000 were not all able-bodied; 31 per cent were either very old or permanently disabled; 34 per cent were women and children, who had been deserted or had lost their supporters by death, and were consequently destitute; and 34 per cent were families or single men in poverty through sickness or want of work; of the 34 per cent under the third head, only 3·8 per cent were adult males, relieved on account of want of work. He would supplement the statement made by the President of the Poor Law Board on the subject of boarding out, by saying that 28 boarding-out committees had been formed in various places in the southern and northern counties, some of which were in communication with

  319
  Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, and it was hoped they would do much good. He concluded by promising that every suggestion made during the debate should be carefully weighed, and that nothing should be left undone to secure the object the hon. Member for Westminster had in view; but it was necessary also to go to the root of the matter, and he hoped for much in this direction from the Education Act and the passing of the Licensing Bill now before the House. He would again urge upon the hon. Member not to press the Motion.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, had his health permitted he would have seconded the Motion, on the ground, not that the Poor Law was badly administered, but that it was most desirable that they should see how far the new movement of the organization of charities could be made to work harmoniously with the Poor Law Board. He did not rise to find fault with the Poor Law Board, because he believed it was carrying out, as efficiently as possible, that which was said to be its proper principle—namely, the combination of the maximum of repression with the minimum of relief; but simply to point out that on the Continent, in several places, pauperism had been almost extinguished by the efforts of the general public; and in one town, Elberfeldt, where voluntary inspectors of the poor were appointed, and where the question had been investigated most carefully and with the most successful results, it had been laid down as a principle that no one should have the care of more than four indigent persons. Now, in this country, a relieving officer had the care of a district so large, that it was impossible he could make himself acquainted with every case. In the town referred to, the division into small districts was so complete that the principle he had stated could be carried out. Something should be done in reference to the immense number of charities, many of which, instead of being beneficial, had a most demoralizing influence. This should be looked into, and he thought it was desirable that there should be a director general of charities appointed by the Government. He hoped that the question would be brought under the notice of the House again next Session, and that then he should have an opportunity of stating his views.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BABY-FARMING.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHARLEY, in moving for a Select Committee—
  "To inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents,"
  explained that, as he understood the Bill, which he had introduced on that question by the desire of the Government, was to be opposed, and that they were willing to grant him an inquiry into its subject-matter, he thought it advisable on his part to accept the alternative thus offered to him. The mortality among children put out to nurse for hire by their parents was frightful, and such as to call for the interference of the Legislature to check it. From inquiries, recently made, it was discovered that, in various parishes, illegitimate children perished at the rate of 46, 53, 87, 93, and 96 per cent respectively, two-thirds of whom were put out. In France generally, the mortality was from 60 to 90 per cent; but in Lyons, where the nurseries were inspected, the rate of mortality was only 20 per cent. Parliament had always interposed on behalf of various classes that were more or less defenceless; but no class could have a stronger claim upon its protection than the poor infants to whom his Motion referred, for their condition was worse than that of the slave before the period of emancipation; because, although the planter might have ill-used his slave, it was not his interest to destroy him; whereas the baby-farmer was strongly tempted by her interest to ill-use the unhappy infant confided to her care with the deliberate intention of causing its death. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Select Committee, of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents,"—(Mr. Charley,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it might perhaps mitigate the disappointment naturally felt by the hon. Member, at being unable to advance his Bill, to learn that the Government, after seriously considering

  321
  that subject, and preparing several sketches of a measure for dealing with it, had not been able to frame such a measure upon it, as they could venture with any confidence to offer to the House as furnishing a satisfactory solution of the question. The subject was therefore one which very fairly demanded inquiry; because, although the terrible punishment which lately overtook one unhappy woman, engaged in that nefarious trade in the lives of infants, might tend for a time to check the evil, yet the traffic might speedily revive; and, moreover, the mortality among illegitimate children put out to nurse was very great, even supposing that no violence or deliberate cruelty was exercised to produce it. An Inquiry, therefore, into the whole subject might advantageously be instituted; and he was glad to find that experienced Members of the House were willing to serve on the Committee, to the appointment of which he had much pleasure in assenting on the part of the Government.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents.
  And, on May 10, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Dr. BREWER, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. CHARLEY, Sir THOMAS HESKETH, Mr. ILLINGWORTH, Mr. KEOWN, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Viscount MAHON, Mr. MELLY, Dr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. RICHARD SHAW, Mr. W. M. TORRENS, Mr. WALPOLE, and Mr. WINTERBOTHAM:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE, in rising to move, pursuant to Notice—
  "That it is advisable that the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster be placed under the control and management of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and that the Commissioners be represented in Parliament by a First Commissioner of Woods and Forests in the same manner as the Department of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings is now represented by a First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings; and
  322
  also that the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster be abolished,"
  said, he held that there were three great Crown properties—namely, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the lands and revenues commonly called the Woods and Forests and Land Revenues of the Crown. Those properties were all placed under different constitutions, treated in different ways, and their revenues appropriated to different purposes; yet they must be regarded as Crown properties, over which the nation had different methods of exercising its rights in respect to them. As the accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster were annually placed before them, and also before the Treasury, the House was perfectly justified in going into these matters. The revenues of the Duchy were not so large as those of the other Crown properties, for in 1870 the actual receipts were £42,722—
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not aware whether the hon. Member proposes to make a Motion. A Minister has assented to the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford, for a Select Committee to inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents. That Question being assented to, the Question that I now leave the Chair is superseded.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE: But the Question was not put from the Chair; and although my observations may not be relevant to the Question brought forward by the hon. Member for Salford, yet, the Question not having been put, I am not aware that I am out of Order.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to Order. A compact was entered into in 1860 between the Government and the independent Members that, as soon as an Amendment was disposed of, it was the duty of the Government to revive the ordinary Motion to go into the Committee of Supply. If that were done, the hon. Member for the City of London would be at liberty to proceed with his Motion; and should that be negatived, it would be competent for any other Member to speak to the ordinary Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: The original Question was, that I do now leave the Chair. To that the hon. Member for Salford

  323
  moved an Amendment that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents. That Amendment was assented to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The adoption of the Amendment supersedes the Question That I do now leave the Chair. But, certainly, it is a course which has been followed on previous occasions that under such circumstances the Government should revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply.
  After a short pause,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I wish to state that there is a difficulty in this particular case. My opinion is, that the Motion is one as to which the Government can hardly exercise any option in order to promote a discussion, because it relates to a matter that is not the subject of a compact between the Crown and Parliament. The affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster are entirely under the control of the Crown, subject to certain conditions. Even if it is optional on the part of the Government—and I conceive that the Motion of my hon. Friend is scarcely a regular one, and one which, I think, the House on its merits would scarcely entertain—I should feel very great difficulty in exercising that discretion. It is, I think, beyond the usages of the House to address the Crown upon matters which have not been made matter of compact between the Sovereign and the Parliament. That part of the Motion which relates to the Woods and Forests is, I think, perfectly relevant; and if my hon. Friend sees the difficulty, and will withdraw that portion of his Motion which relates to the Duchy of Lancaster, and if it be a matter of good faith on the part of the Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, of course I am quite willing to act upon that.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would withdraw that part of the Motion.

SUPPLY.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that his main object in bringing forward this Motion was to induce the Government to have one responsible Member of their body in the House of Commons who should represent the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of tie Crown, so that proper information could be furnished to the House; and had he been allowed to complete his observations on his original Motion, he would not have said anything that could have been in any way objected to by any hon. Member who had represented the Duchy of Lancaster. He thought it was curious that the Duchy had a Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and other officers, whilst the Duchy of Cornwall, with twice the revenue, had nothing of the kind. Formerly there was one Department which managed the Woods, Forests, Works, and Public Buildings; but in 1851 a separation took place. In that same year the Hainault Disafforesting Act was passed, without one word of explanation as to the object and effect of that Act, and the public were thus deprived of that beautiful forest, which was nearer the East-end of London by three or four miles than Epping Forest; no one knew anything about the matter until the Act came into operation. Soon after commenced the sale of the Crown Rights in Epping Forest, which were sold, he believed, in contravention of an Act of Parliament. In consequence of the separation of the two Departments, there was no representative of the Woods and Forests in the House, and the operations in reference to these forests were carried out in a way that was most distasteful to the public. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests had also so mismanaged the foreshores throughout the country that the care of them was handed over to the Board of Trade, in 1866; they had likewise thrown impediments in the way of the formation of the Thames Embankment, and endeavoured to prevent the public road being continued along the Embankment to Westminster, by diverting it at Whitehall, and they were only overruled by the power of the Prime Minister. Again, there was difficulty with regard to the New Forest; and the whole policy of the Woods and Forests Department was one that was not in accordance with the views of the people.

325
A Report of the Commissioners in 1850 stated that probably rights of common in forests had been allowed by way of indulgence, as making up for the strictness of the forestal rights of the Crown, and that the Sovereign should not be considered as a lord of the manor, but as the owner of a forest; that the rights of common should not be dealt with as those of commoners over a manorial waste; and, in case of any arrangement being come to for the suppression of the rights of the Crown, a corresponding part of the forest should be severed for the use of the Sovereign and the public. The rights of the Crown were therefore not small rights, and should not have been sold for £5 an acre, as had been done in the case of Epping Forest. The policy of the Woods and Forests would never be of a satisfactory character until there was some responsible Head to answer for it in that House. As a specimen of the present management, he would ask if anyone walked along the Thames Embankment would he not be disgusted with seeing on the one side a long, dull wall shutting out the view, while on the other there was a beautiful view of the river? Instead of the wall there should have been an iron railing, with ornamental trees inside; and he thought it was a most miserable sight, and most disgraceful to the Woods and Forests, that a dead wall should be placed along public property, and no attempt made to adorn that property. Then look again at Park Lane; that beautiful thoroughfare would never have been widened or continued through Hamilton Place by any action of the Woods and Forests. He thought he had made out a case for some different arrangement as to the Crown lands generally, and that there ought to be a responsible representative in Parliament able to answer for the Department; therefore, he should conclude by moving his Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is advisable that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues be represented in Parliament by a First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in the same manner as the Department of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings is now represented by a First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings,"—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not, at that hour of the night, go into the numerous questions raised by the hon. Gentleman; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman, who contended that the Department had given great dissatisfaction, and that, therefore, the Department ought to be represented in Parliament, that the fact of the Woods and Forests being a Revenue Department, and, therefore, bound to watch over the interests of the whole of the public, was sufficient in itself to excite dissatisfaction. He could not, however, see that the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be of any avail, though if it were a fact, that the Department was at this moment unrepresented in the House of Commons, and that there was nobody responsible for the conduct of its affairs, there would be much force in the hon. Gentleman's arguments; but the fact was, that the separation of the Woods and Forests from the Department of Works was made some 21 years, after considerable investigation, and was not a change lightly to be disturbed. So far from there being no representative of the Department in that House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was himself directly responsible, and if they created a fresh office, with fresh responsibility, the occupant of that office would either not be under the control of the Treasury, in which case they would have the anomaly of a Revenue Department over which the main Department had no control, or he would be under the direction of the Treasury, in which case he would be merely the double of an existing representative of the Department; and the responsibility would, in some degree, be frittered away, because there was some person who interposed between the Treasury and the direct responsibility which the House had a right to expect from them. He could not, on these grounds, accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he certainly thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer most extraordinary, when he said that there was somebody responsible for the Woods and Forests in that House.

327
When the Woods and Forests were brought before the House, they appeared to be a most extraordinary and nondescript class of people; they belonged to nobody and took no interest in anybody. All they said was this—"All we have to do is to be money-grubbers, and to get as much money as we possibly can out of the public." With regard to Black-heath, the Woods and Forests made this declaration, in a Committee with which he had been connected—
"For the sake of £50 a-year, we allow great holes to be dug in Blackheath; and we sell gravel and put the money in our pockets; and we are responsible to nobody; and if we effect that object, we consider we have performed our duty."
That very point had been brought before the House over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a Minister in the House responsible and able to give a sufficient answer when a question was put. When any grievance was brought forward, had there ever been anybody sitting on the Ministerial bench able to give a satisfactory answer in the slightest degree? There never had been; and the House had gone on from time to time, complaining of the course which had been pursued by these Woods and Forests, and there had not been the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to give any satisfaction to the public. He thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of London was most opportune. He never knew before that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to answer for all the shortcomings of the Office of Woods and Forests; for his part, he should like to have an answer like that given by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. It had been complained that his right hon. Friend gave curt answers; but he (Mr. Locke) did not complain of them, because they were straightforward and sensible; but with respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such exalted individuals, they never gave any answer at all. What sort of answer had the Chancellor of the Exchequer given that night? He had slurred over the question. What his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London required was a definite answer. He did not think there was anybody in the country which did its duty so badly as the Woods and Forests, and he thought it would be better to turn the Department over to the First Commissioner of
328
Works, than to leave it as it was at present. He should support his hon. Friend if he carried the question to a division.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that whenever a Committee came to clauses in a Bill affecting rights to foreshores, they were told, on behalf of the Crown, that the clauses could not be discussed, but that they must be accepted as they had been sent in by Mr. Gore. That was a most improper manner of meeting a Committee, and it was time that so bad a practice should be put an end to, and that the Department should be made subordinate to the House. In saying that, he did not want a new office to be created; the Department might be managed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had nothing to do; and then Mr. Gore could be abolished. The rights which were originally vested in the Crown for the benefit of the public ought not to be used to the detriment of the public as they were now by the Woods and Forests. It was an office that required the light which would be surely thrown upon it by a little public criticism. For these reasons he should vote for the Motion.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENrose to defend two public officers, who had been attacked in a most improper manner. They discharged their duties efficiently, and the public derived the benefit of every farthing they saved. He had not a word to say to the Motion; but he was surprised no Member of the Government had risen in their defence.
MR. LOCKEdisclaimed the idea of making any such charge. What he meant to say was, that they had put money into the pockets of the Department.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENwas willing to accept the explanation; but he felt bound, though he had no connection with them, to vindicate the conduct of gentlemen who had sought to do their duty to the public.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was glad that the officers to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should have received some other than official testimony in their favour, but they should receive official testimony also. He must say, he knew of no public officers who stood in a more irreproachable position, and he was glad that that appeared to be understood. He wished, however, to

329
point out to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke), and also to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten), that it was impossible to dispose of such a subject as that under discussion by such a Resolution as was then before them. The subject could not be disposed of on grounds so narrow as that proposed by the Motion, as it was a very large one indeed. The question had been for many protracted years before the House, and had received its careful consideration. It had also been made the subject of most laborious Government inquiries, and it was those laborious inquiries which led to the introduction of the present system. He did not say that the present system was beyond criticism; but he would say that it was not a matter to be dismissed by a conversational debate of that kind. There was a complete fallacy involved in the use of the word "public" in that and similar discussions. There were two publics; there was a local public, and a general public; and Parliament had appointed a Commissioner of Woods to sit on behalf of the general public, and sometimes the Commissioners came in conflict with the local public. This difficulty could only be got over by careful consideration and inquiry, and not by precipitate and sweeping Resolutions, for it was not the case only of Black-heath or the Thames Embankment that this question raised. Go to Scotland, and there they complained that the interests of Scotland were disregarded by the Commissioners, and with respect to the rights of the foreshore at Birkenhead the same question was raised. It was the rights of the nation that were concerned, and no other. If they were to alter the system now established, the alteration would only enable the House of Commons to manage a considerable property; but that property was one of the bases of the dignity of the Crown, and was it on every occasion to be made subject to a Resolution of the House of Commons? He admitted, however, that this property ought to be liberally dealt with. Under all the circumstances, he expressed a hope that his hon. Friend would not press the House to a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CAB REGULATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in rising to call attention to the increase of hackney carriage fares under the Regulations dated 10th March last, said, that on last Tuesday week a most extraordinary circumstance occurred. On that occasion he had a Notice on the Paper similar to the present one, with a view to put some questions to the Home Secretary on the subject of the recent cab regulations. He had virtually concluded his statement, when a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, a Member for a small village in Ireland, where not only were there no hackney carriages, but the accommodation of an outside car could hardly be procured, moved that the House be counted. The principle of "counting" was a very useful one, but the right, like every other right, ought to be exercised with judgment, for nothing could be more inconvenient than that when a Member had concluded his statement, the House should be counted out so as to preclude the Minister from making an answer. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was very much annoyed at what had been done on the occasion to which he referred. However, he would not go over the subject again, but would merely recapitulate the objections which he had urged before. His first objection was, that the Hackney Carriage Regulations had been suddenly issued on the 10th of March last without any notice to the public; and he ventured to suggest that it would be very easy for the authorities to give the same publicity to those regulations which they did now to regulations respecting Her Majesty's Drawing Room and other public ceremonials. His second objection was that, having regard to the remission of taxation on hackney carriages, it was not proper that the fares should be increased, and he noticed particularly the case of a two-wheeled vehicle being allowed to charge 8d. for a quarter of an hour's delay, observing on the inconvenience of it on the ground that 8d. was "broken money." His third objection was, that a hack cab was allowed to charge a shilling fare. For instance, if a carriage was hired at Charing Cross, for a distance just beyond the four-mile circle, the fare would be only 3s.; but if a person hired the carriage on the return

331
journey, he would have to pay a charge of 5s. His last objection was, that the driver of a hackney cab was allowed to charge 2d. for every parcel outside, even when there was only one traveller. He suggested that such a charge should not be allowed, except when, at least, two persons were inside. There were two or three other points to which he wished to call attention. He thought it would be a very easy and inexpensive matter for the Home Office or the Board of Works to measure the distances along the principal thoroughfares, and place a record every half-mile on sign-posts or the lampposts for the guidance of the public. A similar plan was found to succeed at the Kensington Museum. It was also important that legible fare-boards should be placed on the stands and in the stations; and he thought it was singular that there were none of these boards in the City. Probably few hon. Members had ever seen the tickets which cab-drivers were required to carry with them; but the one which he had in his hand would show that they were of a substantial character and almost as large as the driver's plate. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could expect a hackney coach driver to have with him a sufficient number for his passengers, and thought it would be better to substitute the smaller ticket formerly used in France. The hon. Member for Windsor had intimated a few days ago that he was about to move for a Committee to inquire into the police system, and he (Mr. C. Bentinck) would suggest that such a Committee would afford a convenient opportunity for instituting an inquiry as to the cab regulations in the Metropolis.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member for Whitehaven for giving him this opportunity of answering the charge which had been made, and of removing a great many misapprehensions on the subject of cab legislation. The hon. Gentleman complained that the recent regulations had not been made sufficiently public, and suggested that they should be made known in the same manner as the regulations whenever Her Majesty held a Drawing Boom; but the regulations extended over so large a space and were so voluminous that hardly anybody would read them. Some 3,000 copies, however, had been sent to the persons most interested; and notice had
332
been given that every cabman must produce a table of distances, with which was a copy of the regulations, and, moreover, every cab carried a large place on which the points of the greatest interest were indicated. Much unjust criticism had been passed upon him with respect to cab legislation. He would remind the House of what was the previous legislation on the subject. In 1854 the payment for cabs was 8d. per mile, when Mr. Fitzroy, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, brought in a Bill which introduced the fare of 6d. Thus, while cabs bore an exceptional rate, they were allowed to charge a lower fare than cabs in other towns. In Liverpool, under the free trade system, the charge had subsided into 1s. per mile; and in Leeds the civic authorities had raised the fare to that amount from 9d. In Manchester, the fare was 9d. per mile; in Birmingham, 8d.; and in Bristol, 1s. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1869, brought in a measure which relieved the metropolitan cab proprietors from a very heavy duty, and at present all charges amounted to £4 17 s. 6d.; so that they were better off by £14 13 s. 6d. About the same time he (Mr. Bruce) brought in a Bill to provide for the cost of inspection, and under that measure his strict duty would simply have been, with the assistance of the Chief Commissioner of Police, to have secured for the public the benefit of a thorough inspection of cabs, which up to that time had been defrayed by the Treasury. Accordingly, he (Mr. Bruce) brought in a Bill to levy on each cab a charge which would cover the cost of inspection. But he thought the introduction of that measure was a fitting occasion to secure to the public a better vehicle than the four-wheeled cab, which, although it was useful, did not supply all the wants of the public. With that view he proposed that cab proprietors should be allowed to charge what they chose for the use of their cabs; that the system of free trade should be extended to them. No practical use was made of that privilege. It had been said that the reason was that the cab proprietors were not sufficiently consulted. That was not the fact. The cab proprietors were taken into counsel; the objects of the Government were fully explained to them, and every encouragement was given to them to provide a better vehicle. After a very short time they adopted a uniform charge.

333
The free-trade system was tried for a twelvemonth, and had failed. Meantime, he and the Chief Commissioner had done all they could under the circumstances to take the greatest care of the public by insisting that the vehicles should be in better order than before. They could not at once sweep away 7,000 cabs; but, within the last year, they had made no less than 1,537 cabs and 1,337 cab horses disappear. The Hansoms were better now than they had been in any former period, and a better sort of four-wheel cab had replaced the rattletraps that used to exist. It was true the Hansoms had been allowed to make an extra charge; but he thought the improvement manifested by that description of cab would entirely account for it. The fare when outside the four-mile circle was allowed to the cabmen as some recompense for the loss that did not accrue when he plied for hire nearer the centre of the Metropolis; and, to prevent the continual disputes that occurred about luggage, it was thought better to fix the charge at 2d. on every article carried outside the cab. With reference to lamps, he had not thought it necessary to interfere, as last year only 11 persons were killed by cabs, and 86 were killed by all other kinds of vehicles; so he thought that to enforce lamps on cabs and not on other vehicles would be very unjust to the cabmen, and very little public good would come of it. When the now Metropolis Act was passed, which he hoped would not be long, it would be very desirable to transfer the Secretary of State's power over cabs to the local authorities; and with regard to all other matters he would at once communicate with the police in reference to them.
MR. CHARLEYsaid, there was still room for considerable improvement in the cabs used in the Metropolis. The public would ride in them if they were provided; but they would not assist in putting them on the stands.

IRELAND—RAILWAYS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. HERON, in rising to move—
"That legislative facilities ought to be afforded to the Treasury in order that an Imperial guarantee may in proper cases be given for the interest on capital to be provided for the purpose of completing the Railways of Ireland already authorized by Acts of Parliament,"
said, that in 1835 the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject re-
334
ported that it was the opinion of all persons who had considered it, that Imperial guarantee was the best remedial measure that could be provided for Ireland.
MR. VANCEsaid, he seconded the Resolution. The Government had guaranteed the capital of railways to a very large extent in India; and seeing the small amount involved in the Irish railways—only some £4,500,000—he thought they ought to adopt some similar course with regard to these railways, either by purchasing the railways up altogether, or by guaranteeing the necessary capital.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "legislative facilities ought to be afforded to the Treasury in order that an Imperial guarantee may in proper cases be given for the interest on capital to be provided for the purpose of completing the Railways of Ireland already authorised by Acts of Parliament,"—(Mr. Heron,)
—instead thereof.
MR. BRUENsaid, he should support the Motion. As matters stood at present, the public of Ireland suffered very materially from the manner in which the railway system was managed, for that railway system was broken up into a number of small lines, and the traffic of the country was thereby thrown entirely out of its proper course. He suggested that a great deal of benefit would result from the Irish railways being placed to some extent under the Government, who might form a central Board of Management in Dublin to arrange the whole of the railway affairs of the country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not agree to this Resolution. In the case of the guarantees to Indian railways, which had been referred to, those guarantees were given before the lines were constructed, and were only intended to cover any future difficulties into which railway undertakings might be thrown. The case of the fresh railways, however, was not of the same nature. The construction of these railways had already been sanctioned by Parliament; but, as the promoters could not find sufficient money to go on with them, they were already in the extremest state of default. It would really be shorter work for the Government to pay money for them at once, and nothing could be more dangerous

335
than the adoption of such a principle as that now proposed.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 14: Majority 61.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Coatham, Hythe (Southampton), Johnshaven, Newlyn, and Redcar.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Aldeburgh Water, Birkdale Gas, Bognor Gas, Bognor Water, Burgess Hill and Saint John's Common Water, Frome Water, Gisborough Water, Hawkhurst Gas, Herne Bay Water, Holywell Water, Knutsford Gas and Water, Northampton Gas, North Middlesex Gas, Pembroke Docks and Town Gas, Port, madoc Water, Southbank and Normanby Gas, Southend Water, Staines and Egham Gas, Stourbridge and Taunton Gas, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Private Chapels* (96); Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment (97).
Second Reading—County Justices Qualification Amendment* (67).
Committee—Report—Promissory Oaths* (64–100).
Third Reading—Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland (94), and passed.

ARTILLERY.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving an Address for certain Returns respecting the force of Artillery in the United Kingdom, said, that no soldier or civilian could doubt the vast importance of the part which artillery played in modern warfare, it being hardly too much to say that it had of late years been the deciding power in the great European campaigns. If, therefore, our guns were insufficient in number or were insufficiently manned, the position of the country was unsatisfactory, and any expenditure on other branches of Army administration, if not absolutely wasted, was of very doubtful utility. With the permission of their Lordships he would suggest several ways for testing the strength of our artillery force. The first and perhaps the best was to take the number of troops said to be available for military operations. The Secretary for War had repeatedly in "another place" stated them at 300,000, 400,000, or even 500,000 men, including the Reserves. Adopting the lowest of these Estimates, and assuming that we should have to provide artillery for 300,000 men, and adopting the ordinary standard of three guns for every 1,000 men, 900 guns were required, irrespective of Reserves. Now, he believed that, in point of fact, we had considerably less than
  248
  400 guns. If again, the available forces were 400,000 men, 1,200 guns were required. He did not think his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War would say that we were provided with 400 guns; but in some of the battles of the late war there had been more than that number engaged on one side in one Army, Prince Frederick Charles' Army alone had more than that number. Looking then to our coast and land defences, he wished to know what was the proportion of our garrison artillery to our field and horse artillery; and with regard to our garrison artillery what should be the proportion of men to guns. He believed it was the opinion of the most skilled artilleryists that less than 25 men per gun for garrison artillery were wholly inadequate. In the Crimea, he believed, we had never less than that proportion; indeed, the naval brigade employed in the trenches always went into action with 36 men per gun. Since then war had greatly changed, for while the largest guns at that time were of five or six tons, the largest gun for garrison was now of 35 tons; and the greater size of the guns and the projectiles necessitated a larger number of men. Now, in the Southern district, of which Portsmouth was the head-quarters, there were, he believed, 976 guns and 1,276 gunners; in the Western district, Plymouth being the head-quarters, 636 guns and 774 men; in the Eastern district, Dover being the head-quarters, 570 guns and 900 men, the total being 2,182 guns and only 2,950 gunners, or little more than one man per gun. If the Coast Brigade were included, the garrison artillerymen could not be estimated at anything like 5,000 men; whereas 2,182 guns at 25 men per gun required 54,000 men, exclusive of Scotland, Ireland, and our Mediterranean fortresses. This was a serious deficiency, and indicated a condition of great danger in the event of invasion—the contingency for which we were bound to provide—men could not be transferred from one part of the coast to another, as every part would probably be threatened simultaneously, so that each point liable to attack would have to be sufficiently garrisoned. The noble Lord (Lord Northbrook) would probably object that such an enormous force as 54,000 trained artillerymen could not possibly be raised, and that we must depend on troops of the Line to supplement the regular artil-

  249
  leery force. This, no doubt, might be done within certain limits; but the Regular forces were at present small, and were never likely to be large—and everyone would admit that less than one man to a gun was at any rate preposterously inadequate. He believed that in the French Army three or four artillerymen were told off for each gun, sailors or Gardes Mobiles being depended on for the rest. Their Lordships knew what the result had been in the late war, and it was certainly not very encouraging. He believed that in the Crimea also the French had an insufficient number of trained artillerymen, and had to supplement them by troops of the Line; the consequence being that their batteries were more than once unable to sustain the hot fire of the Russians. Turning to the proportion of gunners in the horse and field artillery, he was aware that the Government claimed credit for augmentations, and he would admit that these considerably counterbalanced the reductions. The force of horse and field artillery now in the United Kingdom, as stated by Mr. Cardwell, amounted to 16 batteries of horse artillery with 96 guns, and 40 batteries of field artillery with 240 guns; the total number of guns being thus 336. Mr. Cardwell and Sir Henry Storks had spoken of these as if they were perfectly ready for action; but of these 336, which everyone would admit to be the minimum of what was necessary, not quite one-half were properly manned and horsed. The reason was that they were all on the peace establishment—the difference between this and a war footing being no less than 80 men and 136 horses in every battery of horse artillery, and 115 men and 173 horses in every battery of field artillery. It would be impossible to go into the field with a peace establishment, and the deficiency could not be supplied on war being proclaimed, for in these days hostilities commenced a few days after the proclamation of war, and, whatever might be possible in other branches of the Army it was utterly impossible to extemporize either artillerymen or horses. Both men and horses required long and careful and scientific training before they were fit for artillery work, and it would be an affair not of weeks and months but almost of years before the raw material was ready for service. To bring up these batteries to a
  250
  war footing would demand 5,200 trained gunners and 8,700 horses, and it was obviously impossible that such an increased number of men and horses could be obtained properly trained on an emergency. It was not merely that the peace establishment was less than the necessity of the case required, but the number of batteries really available, in consequence of the deficiency of men and horses, was even lower than a peace establishment itself would imply. In the horse artillery there were on a peace establishment 2,288 men and 1,824 horses, while in the field artillery there were 2,760 men and 3,520 horses. Dividing these figures by what should be the war establishment, this formidable conclusion came out—that in the horse artillery there were only 10 batteries with 60 guns, instead of 16 batteries with 96 guns, and in the field artillery 21 batteries with 126 guns, instead of 40 batteries with 240 guns; while with regard to horses, there were only 7 batteries of horse artillery with 42 horses, instead of 16 batteries with 96 horses; and in the field artillery there were only 13 batteries with 38 horses, instead of 40 batteries with 96 horses. The result of this was that there were but 20 effective batteries with 120 guns, instead of 56 batteries with 336 guns. It therefore followed that the notion that there were 336 guns ready for service was altogether fallacious, and if Parliament and the nation were relying upon such a force of artillery in the event of a war breaking out the country would find itself in a very critical position. It might be replied that there were the depots to fall back upon; but the Indian establishment was recruited from these, and they were on a very small scale, being composed in a certain measure of old horses and young recruits. Again, it might be said that this country could not be expected to maintain a war establishment when other countries, such as Russia, were content with a peace establishment. Russia, however, had very large reserves, while we, practically speaking, were wholly without reserves as regarded horse and field artillery. Reductions had even been made lately on important points; the number of waggons in the horse artillery had been cut down, and in districts where horses of the best kind were formerly abundant they were now difficult to obtain, large

  251
  numbers having been exported at a high price for the German Army. The whole difficulty of the case, in fact, lay in the impossibility of extemporizing these scientific and trained troops at a moment's notice; and therefore they ought to be increased until, at all events, there were considerable reserves to fall back upon. What, then, was the state of the case as regards reserves? We had very few reserves even as far as the mere guns were concerned; we had all our naval stores concentrated in and about Woolwich and the metropolitan district; the great commercial ports were absolutely undefended; the fortifications, on which a great deal of money had been spent, were incomplete, gun after gun not being mounted, and the most important points on the coast were undefended. Abroad the case was not much more satisfactory, at all events with regard to our two great forces in the Mediterranean. At the beginning of the year—whatever might have been done since—there was at Malta only one battery of two guns properly mounted and armed; and he doubted whether at Gibraltar there was even one trained artilleryman. At Malta, too, the number of trained artillerymen was very small, though the fortifications were very extensive; and the garrison had been much reduced within the last two years. What, then, were the resources to which we could look? It might be said that the field artillery could be supplemented by the regular garrison artillery. Now, even if this was feasible—as to which opinions differed—the number of trained garrison gunners was so extremely small that we had really no resources of that kind. Again, it might be said that the field artillery could be supplemented by the Militia and Volunteer Artillery. No soldier of experience, however, would assert this—for, not to speak of other reasons, the drivers required almost as long a training as the gunners. He admitted that the Militia and Volunteer Artillery formed a powerful Reserve for garrison purposes, and that being 49,000 strong they would be amply sufficient, in conjunction with the garrison artillerymen, to make all the great towns and central fortifications absolutely secure. He feared, however, that they were at present uninstructed, and that, in spite of the best intentions, they must be pronounced comparatively inefficient. The Commission of distinguished artillery
  252
  officers which sat last year recommended some important changes in these branches of the service, in order to make them available for garrisoning, and among other matters a better and more complete system of training was recommended, while it was also suggested that some officer of distinction and eminence should be appointed at the head of that instruction; that the Militia and Volunteer Artillery should be organized on a common system, and that they should be brought into contact with the Regular force and into greater unity—all of which results, according to the Report of the Commission, could be achieved at a small cost. Though finding fault, to a certain extent, with the Secretary for War, his object was rather to strengthen his hands. If the Government deliberately chose to keep the artillery on a peace footing the responsibility would rest with them. What we wanted was first a numerical increase in the men and horses of the field artillery, re-organizing the reserves so as to provide for the garrison artillery; secondly, a proper system of instruction for the Regular and Reserve Artillery forces; thirdly, an officer of distinction to take charge of this instruction and give unity to the system; and, lastly, a re-organization of both the Regulars and Reserves under a common management. Till these measures were taken we were living in a state of complete self-deception, counting upon horses which, if suddenly called upon to act, would be found to have no real existence. And the troubled state of Europe was a serious consideration. He saw with regret that after three months' discussion the country was still just as utterly helpless for maintaining its dignity abroad as it was at the commencement of the century, and almost as helpless for defence at home. He feared that the terrible lessons of the late war were, in a great degree, thrown away upon us, for he observed a feeling of indifference creeping over Parliament and the country on these vital subjects, and at least half the Session had been wasted in what he ventured to call unprofitable controversy on this subject.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the following Returns with regard to the force of Artillery in the United Kingdom:

  1. Number of horse, field, and garrison artillerymen in the United Kingdom, exclusive of depôts:

  253

  2. Number of the same in depôts:

  3. Number of militia and volunteer artillerymen in the United Kingdom:

  4. Number of artillerymen in the fortresses of Gibraltar and Malta respectively.—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

  VISCOUNT HARDINGEdesired to thank his noble Friend for calling attention to this important subject. He regretted with him that the Government had not proposed a larger increase in the artillery, the strength now contemplated being the very minimum which ought to be kept up on a peace establishment. It was impossible, however, to provide an artillery force in due proportion to our Reserve forces, for this would involve something like 1,400 field guns, which large increase on our present strength Parliament would hardly be prepared to grant. The proposed increase was insufficient, for in case of war we had no artillery reserve whatever; and he objected to the reduction of the cadres of the officers in India—namely, four officers and two subalterns in every brigade of horse artillery, and four captains and ten subalterns in every brigade of field artillery. Eight troops of horse artillery were to be brought home from India, in spite, he was told, of the protest of the Commander-in-Chief in India; and it was stated that they were to come home without drivers. He understood also that ten batteries of garrison artillery were to be converted into field artillery, and that they would be replaced by untrained men; as also that the new field batteries required drivers, who would need some amount of training. He feared that in these measures the Government had lost sight of the principle that economy and efficiency should go hand-in-hand. He was anxious to know the strength of the first class Army Reserve, which he hoped was at least 4,000 men; and how many gunners it included, as well as the strength of the Militia Reserve, and the number of artillerymen it included. He had heard that out of 15,000 in the latter force there were only 1,000 artillerymen. The majority of the colonels had stated that a second Militia artillery brigade could be easily formed, and as the Militia was to be raised to 140,000 men, he would impress on the Government the advisability of increasing the artillery branch. It was important, too, that the Militia artillery should be properly trained; for 14 days for re-
  254
  cruits and 28 days for the remainder of the force—the period assigned this year—was quite insufficient, considering the number of Sundays and wet days which intervened. As to the Volunteer Artillery, it was a valuable branch, and the Government had done a great deal to leaven it by enabling 1,000 men a-year to pass through the camp at Shoeburyness; but it could not be brought beyond a certain standard. Every soldier viewed with alarm the proposal of the Government that boys of 17 or 18 should be enlisted, and after three years' service passed into the Reserve; for though this might be the quickest plan of forming a Reserve, it would be effected at the expense of efficiency. Hence he was anxious to support the noble Earl in considering that the increase in the Royal Artillery had not been sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case—there being but a small amount of Infantry and Cavalry Reserve, and he might say none of Artillery.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as an impression seemed to exist that the reduction of the artillery in India and the increase in England were connected together, he rose to explain that the former step was decided on by the Government of India long before it was known that the home force was to be increased. In concluding their financial arrangements, the Government of India decided to reduce the force by five batteries of horse and three of garrison artillery; all its members considering that this was expedient and safe with the exception of Lord Napier of Magdala, who had some objection to it—and it was but natural for an Indian Commander-in-Chief to dislike a reduction of the force. This decision was approved by the India Office at home, which thereupon proposed to the War Office that these batteries should be absorbed at home; it was, however, found impracticable to bring the three garrison batteries to England, and they were therefore to be broken up in India.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that being connected with the Militia Artillery, he would suggest that a part of that force should be exercised as field artillery, instead of being looked upon merely as garrison artillery. It would be well if some of the regiments could be instructed in the use of the mitrailleuse, which had proved so effect-

  255
  tive a weapon in the late campaign, and also in the civil war now unhappily going on in France. At present the Militia Artillery know nothing at all of the mitrailleuse.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, it had been rumoured that the Government intended to strengthen the field at the expense of the garrison artillery by drafting the latter into the former; but he must urge that the garrison artillery required higher qualifications than the other branch. It was a recognized principle that the class of men who could be trained in the shortest period should be kept at a low level, while the class requiring the longest term of training should be kept at the highest standard; but the Government would depart from that principle if they permanently reduced the strength of the garrison artillery for the purpose of increasing the field artillery. He wished to know whether the reduction of the former was to be a permanent measure? He hoped the Government would consider the noble Viscount's remarks on the necessity of a longer period of training for Militia Artillery, for at present, according to information supplied to him by officers in his own county, there was in some cases really only about three days' training a-year for each man at gun drill, and the money might as well be thrown into the sea.
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), following his usual custom, had made his speech before obtaining the Returns, and had consequently fallen into inaccuracies. He would point out the alterations that had really been made in the artillery. In 1870 there were in the United Kingdom 180 guns of horse artillery and field batteries, 5,702 officers and men, and 2,966 horses; while the Estimates for the present year provided for 336 guns, besides 30 in depôts, 9,698 officers and men, and 5,800 horses;—showing an increase of 31 batteries, 186 guns, 4,000 officers and men, and 3,000 horses. The force of garrison artillery in 1870 consisted of 64 batteries and 6,641 officers and men; while this year's Estimates gave 42 batteries and 7,152 officers and men. These figures, he hoped, would satisfy the House that the Government had not overlooked the strength of our artillery, and would answer the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) by
  256
  showing that while the field artillery had been strongly increased, the garrison artillery had also been slightly increased as regarded officers and men. No doubt there had been a decrease in the number of batteries of garrison artillery; but that was a decrease in the officers, and not in the rank and file. In making these changes, the Secretary of State had acted under the advice of competent authorities and of the Committee of which the late Quartermaster General (General Haines) was Chairman, who proposed the peace establishment for horse artillery and field batteries on which this estimate was based. These changes were suggested after due deliberation, and the establishment was calculated in such a manner that it could be readily raised to an establishment sufficient for war service. In addition to the increase in the artillery, made in the Estimates of 1871, it was proposed, if the Bill now before Parliament should receive the Royal Assent, to lose no time in organizing the Militia and Volunteer Artillery. With regard to the Volunteer Artillery, he believed he was stating the opinion of those qualified to judge when he said that that force would be much more usefully employed as garrison artillery than as field artillery. With regard to the mitrailleuse, it appeared to him doubtful whether it would be right to employ the Militia or Volunteer Artillery, in the use of that arm. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) assumed that the recommendations of the Royal Commission respecting the instruction of the Volunteer Artillery had not been carried out; but he had to observe that the substance of those recommendations had already been carried out. To revert to the strength of the artillery at home—There would be 336 guns—being precisely the same number as in 1805, when it was expected that Napoleon would invade the country. If that number were not sufficient for 400,000 or 500,000 men, it should at the same time be borne in mind that that number of men could not all be brought into the field at one and the same time. In his opinion, the artillery force proposed by the Government was sufficient for the present wants of the country; and no anxiety need be felt for the perfect safety of Gibraltar and Malta, where the strength of artillery was greater than when the noble Earl himself was Secretary of State

  257
  for the Colonies, and responsible for the safety of those fortresses. The noble Earl said that to raise a horse artillery battery from peace to war strength required 70 men and 136 horses, and a field, battery 115 men and 173 horses. Now, the peace establishment of a battery of horse artillery was composed of five officers, 143 non-commissioned officers and men, and 126 horses; while the war establishment for home defence consisted of five officers, 164 men, and 172 horses:—so that the real difference was 21 men and 46 horses, instead of 70 men and 136 horses, as stated by the noble Earl. Compared with the peace establishment of any other country in the world, ours was the stronger. The Prussian war establishment of horse artillery was four officers, 152 non-commissioned officers and men, and 146 horses; our peace establishment was five officers, 143 men, and 126 horses; so that the Prussian war establishment only exceeded our peace establishment by nine men and 20 horses. With regard to field batteries, the peace establishment was five officers, 144 non-commissioned officers and men, and 88 horses; the war establishment for home defence was five officers, 164 non-commissioned officers and men, and 138 horses; or a difference of 20 men and 46 horses, instead of 115 men and 173 horses as the noble Earl alleged. The noble Earl was in possession of very insufficient information on this subject, and had thus made statements which did not represent the proper figures, or the proposals of the Government. The arrangements made by the Government had been with a view to be able to increase our establishments at short notice. Three depôt batteries of field artillery had been established, and two of horse artillery; and these would have a large strength of drivers, because it was essential to have in reserve drivers, in order to place artillery in a condition for service. Great pains had been taken to supply this necessity, and if they wanted to place the artillery on a war footing they would only have to take a few guns from the garrison artillery and purchase a few more horses. He wished particularly to impress on their Lordships that our peace establishment was neither artificial nor delusory; they had been carefully considered by those who were responsible, and could be easily made effective should war occur. As to the
  258
  number of artillerymen in the Militia Reserve, he could not at that moment state it, not having the documents at hand; but he believed that a Return giving this information had been already laid before Parliament. By increasing the length of training from 14 to 28 days, they had done something to meet the suggestion of his noble Friend (Viscount Hardinge), and the Government would be glad if they could secure for the Militia still more effective training. They had always considered the Militia a most valuable force, and would gladly do everything in their power further to improve it. All suggestions to that effect would therefore receive the most respectful attention of the Government. He hoped their Lordships would be satisfied that a considerable increase had been made in the artillery; that the increase he had described was not a paper increase, but was made in such a manner as would enable the force to be rapidly and efficiently put upon a war footing.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I wish to make a few observations on this subject, which cannot but command the attention of every military man. I may take this opportunity of pointing out to your Lordships that it is a very natural thing that officers who have commanded a fine field battery or battery of horse artillery should desire it to be and remain very efficient. If I myself commanded one of those batteries, I should greatly regret that it should be put on a peace establishment. But it is utterly impossible that you should keep field batteries or horse artillery on a war footing in time of peace. What I venture to think of great importance is that there should exist a power of expanding the Army when an increased force is called for. It is far more essential that the artillery should consist of a large number of batteries capable of expansion at short notice than that we should have a few batteries so large in number that though the actual force of men and horses is the same, still you have not the means of expanding them. The formation of new batteries, battalions, or regiments of cavalry is a perfectly different thing from increasing the establishments of old ones. In the latter case you have the officers in hand, you have the Staff, and, to a certain extent, in the case of artillery, you have horses and drivers,

  259
  You put the less efficient men and horses into the second row of waggons, and in a short time they become efficient. I must express my regret that the officers of the Royal Artillery—and a finer set of officers do not exist—seem to hold the opinion that their batteries should be stronger. I think, on the contrary, that there should be a larger number of batteries on a peace establishment, so that our artillery force may be expanded in an emergency upon the old foundations; and I hope we shall not be led away by a natural desire on the part of the officers and conclude that the existing batteries of artillery are too weak, and that they ought to be diminished in number with a view to increase the strength of such as remain. We cannot fall into a greater error, and I hope we shall not do so. As regards the increase this year, we had 180 field guns last year, and this year we shall have 336 field guns, every one of which is horsed with six horses, while every field battery has a waggon to each gun besides, horsed with four horses. There ought, in my opinion, to be no great difficulty in increasing the existing batteries and bringing them up to a fair degree of efficiency in a short time. We have had an addition of 20,000 men made to our Army since last year, and the increase in the artillery has, I think, been very considerable. I do not say it is too considerable, as it ought to be so, compared with the necessity which existed for increasing that branch of the service. I quite admit that the artillery is one of those branches of our military service which ought to be kept in as efficient a state as possible. It is a scientific branch, and it is, of course, more difficult to train men for it than for other branches; but I am not going the length at the same time of saying that we ought to sacrifice the remainder of the Army for the sake of one particular branch. It would not, therefore, it seems to me, be desirable to increase the artillery more than we have done, because by so doing we might impair the efficiency of the rest of the service. As to the remarks which have been made with respect to transferring men from garrison artillery to field artillery, I would observe that there is nothing, no doubt, so essential as a well-trained garrison artillery—more especially when we take into account the great calibre of the heavy guns, which renders the work-
  260
  ing of this branch of the service very intricate. But if there is any part of an artilleryman's education which is more delicate and requires more instruction than another it is that which is connected with field artillery, which requires the most delicate handling. I may add that no greater misfortune could, in my opinion, occur to the Militia than that they should be converted into field artillery. They are a most admirable force for the purposes of garrison artillery; but I do not see how it is possible that they can get any field artillery instruction which would be of much utility in the short space of time at their disposal for drill. Of course the longer the Militia are drilled the better, speaking in a military point of view, I should be pleased. The civil habits and occupations of the Militiaman, however, render it almost impossible that he should undergo a longer period of training than he does at present. If the period of training were extended, the Militia would, no doubt, be rendered more efficient for the purposes of field artillery; but I am very much afraid that under a more extended system of training they would lose many of their civil employments. I believe the efficiency of our artillery has been very much increased by the arrangements which have been made. The number of batteries has not been increased, but we have increased our cadres of field batteries by decreasing numbers of our garrison batteries, adding at the same time to the establishments of garrison gunners per battery, so as to make up this loss in the aggregate. I have desired to address these observations to the House, as I know much has been said on this subject of artillery.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished to say, in explanation, that the calculations on which he had based his statement had not been hastily made. He, unfortunately, had not the Papers with him, nor had he, of course, access to official documents. He was, however, under the impression that the calculations were correct. If it should turn out that they were not he should be the better pleased.
  Motion agreed to.

SAFETY OF DR. LIVINGSTONE.
EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships will, I am sure, be glad to hear that

261
despatches have been received this day at the Foreign Office from Dr. Kirk, the Acting British Consul at Zanzibar, containing information of the safety of Dr. Livingstone in October last. The Doctor was then at Manakoso, awaiting the supplies that have been despatched to him. Meanwhile his immediate wants appear to have been met by the Arabs.

COUNTY JUSTICES QUALIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 67.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COUNTY JUSTICES QUALIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 67.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to remove the disqualification which the statute of 5 Geo. II., c. 18, imposed on attorneys, solicitors, and proctors to become justices of the peace for counties; with the proviso that they should not be capable of being appointed for the counties in which they carried on business. The Act repealed was intended, as stated in its Preamble, "to prevent persons of mean estate" occupying a seat on the bench of justices; but since it was passed, in the time of George II., circumstances had wholly changed, and nothing now need prevent the appointment of a class of men who were in many respects eminently qualified for the duties of the office.
  LORD CHELMSFORDexpressed his high approbation of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOSS OF H.M. SHIP THE "CAPTAIN"—THE LATE CAPTAIN BURGOYNE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BUCKHURSTasked Her Majesty's Government, If there is any truth in the statement that the Admiralty have refused to pay certain bills incurred in his official capacity by the late Captain Burgoyne, of Her Majesty's ship Captain, and have referred the creditors to the widow, Mrs. Burgoyne, for payment? It had been stated in the public Press, with some authority, that the late Captain Burgoyne had in his official capacity, and not on his own private behalf,
  262
  incurred certain debts for the officers' mess and for the band, amounting, it was alleged, to £400 or £500. One item was £46 for the uniform of the band. He was aware that these expenses usually fell on the officers, and no doubt would have been met by them had they survived their ill-fated ship. He could also see that it might be inconvenient for any Government to make itself responsible for expenses of this kind. What he desired to urge was, that this was an utterly exceptional case; and the peculiar burdens connected with it might be treated exceptionally. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether that could not be done without establishing a precedent for other cases; and whether they could not in that way pay a small tribute of respect to the memory of a gallant officer?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it was not true that the Admiralty had referred any of the creditors to the widow of Captain Burgoyne. What had occurred was this:—Since the loss of the Captain bills incurred for the officers' mess, amounting in all to £380, had been sent by the creditors to the Admiralty. The Admiralty refused to pay them, as they hold them to be incurred in respect of matters of a private nature. The bills were almost entirely for extra provisions, wines, and matters of that sort, which officers purchased for their own convenience. There was a bill of £23 for stationery for the private use of the officers; and that the Admiralty considered as a private bill. With regard to the claim of £42 for band instruments and uniforms, no doubt the noble Lord was aware that band instruments were always provided by the officers, not only in the Navy, but also in the Army; and the creditor himself in his letter stated he was aware of that circumstance, but hoped that this would be treated as an exceptional case. But if an exception was made in this case it would be against the positive regulations of the Admiralty, and the officers of every ship would say—"You paid for the band instruments and uniform in that case because the ship was lost; why not pay for them in our case also?" An instance of this kind had never arisen before, and he saw no reason why an exception should be made. The noble Lord had argued that the Admiralty might treat this as an exceptional case;

  263
  but he must be aware how difficult it was to make exceptions. As soon as a rule was made, a case was sure to arise possessing certain exceptional features, and if an exception was made in that case it would have to be made in another; until at last the rule would be broken through altogether. He was very sensible of the great loss sustained by the families of the officers who were lost in the Captain, and the Admiralty sympathized with them as much as anyone in the country could do. They had considered how they could manage to make some pecuniary compensation to Mrs. Burgoyne, so as to meet demands of this kind, and they found it could be done in this way. Captain Burgoyne was entitled under the regulations to take £350 worth of furniture provided by the Admiralty; but he preferred to take only £140 worth. The Admiralty considered that they might consistently with their duty, with the approval of the Audit Office, pay the difference between those two sums to Mrs. Burgoyne, and accordingly they had paid her £210, in order that that might meet the expenses alluded to by the noble Lord. He could assure their Lordships that the loss which Mrs. Burgoyne had experienced was doubly increased in the eyes of the Admiralty when it was remembered that she was the daughter of that eminent officer Sir Baldwin Walker.

PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF IRELAND BILL —(Nos. 77, 94.)—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that on first reading this Bill it seemed to him that its provisions were wholly inadequate to meet the disgraceful state of things evidenced by the witnesses on the Westmeath Committee; and though some of their Lordships thought that a different form of procedure to that adopted in the Bill should have been taken for that end, yet he thought all not Members of the Government had agreed with him in the conclusion he first arrived at—especially as to the extension of the provisions of the Bill to a larger area; still, as he found the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) on the one side, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) on the
  264
  other, not inclined to go further than the suggestions of Her Majesty's Government on that point, he thought it was useless to press an Amendment. But a new outrage of the worst kind occurring in the county of Mayo reminded him that while they were deliberating on the expediency of enforcing measures to repress crime, crime was again asserting its supremacy over law. He therefore felt it his duty to press the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The last attempt at murder in Mayo to which he referred was that on Monday last two shots were fired at Mr. Pike, at his residence in the county of Mayo—fortunately without effect. A threatening notice had previously been sent to him. From the threatening letter the police had notice that crime was intended; but under the existing law, from want of evidence they could not interfere—though probably had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended they might have arrested those likely to be implicated, and by so doing prevented the outrage being committed. To justify the Amendment he now proposed he must in part repeat to their Lordships the statistics he read to the House on Tuesday. The agrarian outrages in Mayo were half of those committed in the whole of Ireland during the year 1870. The Peace Preservation Act doubtless checked crime throughout Ireland; but in the months of January, March, and April the outrages reported in Mayo were as numerous as in Westmeath, and there were no less than seven murders or attempts to murder among them, besides an attempt at night to burn down a house with all its inhabitants, but they were fortunately aroused by the smoke. In none of these cases had there been any conviction, nor, he believed, was there anyone in custody. He thought, therefore, he had clearly shown to the House that in 1870 Mayo had an unfortunate pre-eminence in crime, and that up to the present moment crime prevailed undetected and unpunished. He thought it should not be necessary for him to urge on Her Majesty's Government under these circumstances that it was their bounden duty to ask for some extra powers to re-establish the supremacy of the law. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) said Ribandism did not extend to Mayo. He carefully attended to the speech of the noble Earl, and failed to learn how he

  265
  distinguished between crimes that were agrarian and crimes that were Riband. Sir John Stewart Wood stated in his evidence that the state of crime in Mayo was not so bad as in Westmeath, and that though he did not think Ribandism extended to Mayo, he was not sure. Dr. M'Nulty, while denying the existence of the Riband Society as one united association, stated his belief that Ribandmen had probably means of recognizing one another all through Ireland, and so sent persons from one locality to perpetrate crime in another. Then their Lordships had the fact that whereas till three years ago the people of Mayo had been remarkable for being orderly and well-conducted, now murders and outrages were committed with impunity through the whole area of the county. He thought that was strong evidence of the existence of organization under the direction of some extraneous influence. But the results were the same to the people of Mayo; crime, outrage, and terror prevailed; the Executive was unable to cope with them; Parliament was quite willing to intrust them with any powers they required. If they refused these powers and crime continued unchecked, were they not accessory to the fact. Why was it that Government refused to have powers that they used only according to their own discretion? His convictions as to the future effects of the Land Bill were the same as they were when it passed—that they would be most disastrous. He appealed to noble Lords from Ireland, whether they supported or opposed that measure, whether he did not state an undeniable fact that the people of Ireland believed that that measure was conceded as a sop to crime? They believed that, as virtually the fee of the land was transferred from landlord to tenant subject to a rent charge, by the continuance of the same system, they would force Parliament to release them from that rent charge. If such was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, if they intended no further to despoil the landlord, let them show that they would no longer wink at crime or allow Ireland to continue in a state which was intolerable in a Christian and civilized country.
  Amendment moved, "That the provisions of the Bill be extended to the county of Mayo."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was sure the House would excuse his not discussing with the noble Lord the precise amount of responsibility which might fall upon Her Majesty's Government if they did not follow his advice. Nor would he discuss the arguments which the noble Lord had used against a Bill which was passed last Session—the Land Bill. With regard to the particular Motion which the noble Lord had made, he would only say that Her Majesty's Government had very carefully considered to what extent the powers for which they asked by this Bill should be applied, and they did not think that the county of Mayo was one of the parts of Ireland which should be included in this special legislation. He had heard nothing from the noble Lord to induce him to change his opinion, and hoped the House would reject the Motion of the noble Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, as the Bill had been read a third time, it would be very difficult to alter it so as to include the county of Mayo within it. But from reliable information which he had received, he must say that in no district of Ireland did life and property require protection more than in that county. This Bill purported to be one for the protection of life and property in Ireland; whereas it was, in fact, merely a measure to put down the Riband Society in a certain district in that country. He admitted the necessity that existed for putting down that abominable institution; but the mere accomplishment of that object would not suffice for the protection of life in either Westmeath or in the other disturbed districts in Ireland. The noble Earl who introduced the measure (the Earl of Kimberley) drew a distinction between Fenianism and the Riband Society; but it would be no satisfaction to a dying man to be told that he had been shot by a Fenian and not by a Ribandman, or vice versâ. Captain Talbot, who had been examined before the Select Committee of the other House, could have told that Committee that the mere dissolution of the Riband Society would have no effect in protecting life and property in Ireland; and a reverend clergyman two years ago, in speaking on the subject, told his hearers that now-a-days when a man felt himself aggrieved he said nothing to any society or to anybody

  267
  else, but just toot his gun and "tumbled" his landlord or whosoever the offending party might be. Under these circumstances the Government ought to introduce a second Bill, which would really deserve the title that had erroneously been given to the present one. He desired that the Government should take to themselves the full responsibility in this matter. At this time the people of Ireland were more rich and prosperous than at any previous time during the century. How was it then that the people were leaving the country? The large emigration continuing from a wealthy and prosperous country showed that the hard-working and honest farmer or la-labourer who was unwilling to be driven into crime was compelled to seek in other countries that liberty which was denied to him in his own, in consequence of necessary steps not having been taken to secure the supremacy of the law.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that while agreeing with the noble Lord on the cross benches that it was desirable to put down crime in Mayo, he thought that it would be objectionable to extend the operation of this Bill to Mayo, because this measure had been specially framed upon the Report of the Select Committee of the other House of Parliament which had been appointed to consider the question of disturbances in Westmeath, and that Report was founded on evidence taken before it. The Order of Reference by the House of Commons was to inquire into the state of Westmeath and a part of Meath; but if the provisions of the Bill were extended to Mayo that would include a part of Ireland, as to which inquiry had not been made. He should also deprecate the extension of a Bill which contained more stringent powers than had ever been conferred on any Government in this country. Acting on the principle of placing all the responsibility for this matter on the Government, he would not, unless it were absolutely necessary extend the Bill to other parts of Ireland than those at first proposed.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

POST OFFICE—THE SCOTCH MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDasked Her Majesty's Government, How it is proposed to convey the mails beyond Inverness, the Post Office having given notice that after the 31st of May the mail trains north of that town would not be required?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the mails would be conveyed as parcels by such passenger trains as were available for their conveyance—the plan of subsidizing the railway having proved too unremunerative to admit of continuance. If any inconvenience arose, the Post Office would be prepared to put a train on on Sundays.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out the risk which would be incurred if the mails were sent as parcels by passenger train, since valuable documents were now transmitted by post. He believed the real cause of the change was the dissatisfaction which the Highland Railway Company felt at being only paid 1s. 1d. per mile for the trains that were placed at the disposal of the Post Office and their efforts to get that sum increased. He urged that the matter should be referred to arbitration, and hoped the Post Office would make some other arrangement than that which the noble Marquess had proposed; because to go back to the old system of coaches would be a retrograde movement.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he regretted that any part of the United Kingdom should suffer from want of postal communication; but he wished to explain that there was no falling back to the old system in the arrangements which had been made. Instead of the Post Office paying a sum to the company for the right of making mail trains run at particular hours, the mails would be sent forward by passenger trains as parcels. This was a system in practice in many parts of the country, and there could be no difficulty in securing the safety of the mails, for which the Post Office officials would be responsible.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.