Sitting of 16 February 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Trade Partnerships, appointed; East India (Finance), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health [48]; Real Estate (Titles) * [50]; Public Health and Local Government * [49]; Middlesex Registration of Deeds * [52]; Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment * [53]; Bakehouses * [54]; Poor Law Loans * [51].
Second Reading—Reformatory and Industrial Schools [25]; Public Prosecutors [28].
Withdrawn—Game and Trespass * [12].

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—APPOINTMENT OF SIR ROBERT COLLIER.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the letter of Mr. Justice Willes to the Lord Chancellor, on the subject of Sir Robert Collier's appointment, was written in reply to any communication from the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, whether he will acquaint the House with the nature of such communication?
MR. GLADSTONE: Since the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire gave Notice of his Question, yesterday, I have made inquiry, with the view of accuracy, and I find the exact state of things to be this—Mr. Justice Willes, as I am informed, spontaneously wrote a letter to Sir Robert Collier, expressing his opinion upon the whole matter. That letter was shown to the Lord Chancellor, who inquired how far it might be made use of. Mr. Justice Willes was of opinion that being written in the form of a private letter, it was not convenient for that purpose; but he put the substance of it into a public letter which was given to the Lord Chancellor for publication. I enter into this explanation, because the noble Lord will see that I should not have been accurate if I had confined myself to a simple affirmative answer.

METROPOLIS—WATER SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STAPLETONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to take any steps, under the Metropolis Water Acts, 1852–1872, in consequence of the polluted
  526
  state of the Water recently supplied by some of the Water Companies?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, stated that the examiner appointed under the Act had been instructed to examine, at least once a month, the reservoirs and filtering beds of the water companies, and to report as to the state of the filtration before distribution commenced, and to make a special report whenever there was a necessity for one. In the case referred to by the hon. Member, the examiner had made a special report, which had only been received that day, so that he (Mr. C. Fortescue) had not had time to read it. After considering it, he should be able to decide whether there ought to be further inquiry into the state of the water supply of the companies in question. He might add that the examiner reported that the state of the water was much better at this moment than it had been for some time previously; and that the impurity of the water, such as it was in January, appeared to have been caused partly from the floods of that month and partly by the fact that the companies concerned were carrying on very important works of alteration and improvement, which rendered it difficult for them to carry out for the time the important but slow process of filtration. If the hon. Member liked to move for the special Report, he should be glad to produce it.

  CRIMINAL LAW—COST OF PROSECUTIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. PELLasked the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac), Whether he is aware that a Motion—which has been deferred from unavoidable circumstances—stands on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), with reference to the subject of the Question about to be put by the hon. Member for St. Ives to the Secretary of the Treasury, and whether he is aware that the same hon. Member had obtained Returns as to these disallowances, both for counties and boroughs?
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that, having regard to the intentions of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), he would refrain from making any Motion, even if the Answer of the Secretary to the Treasury

  527
  made it necessary. He asked, Whether it is the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to abandon the present system of disallowing portions of the costs of Criminal Prosecutions, which has been described by the Lord Chief Justice in a recent judgment as having no legal authority?
  MR. BAXTER: The payments made as costs of criminal prosecutions may be classed under four heads—1, Expenses of prosecutors and witnesses; 2, Court fees to clerks of the peace at sessions; 3, fees of justices' clerks; 4, fees of counsel and attorney. Under the first three heads the disallowances of the Treasury chiefly consist in bringing to scale, and correcting mistakes made by the local officers; and it never could have been intended that the Treasury should not have the power of rectifying errors of this kind. Under the fourth head, however, a larger question arises, and it is now under consideration in what manner the Treasury can best reconcile the duty of seeing that irregular charges are not paid out of the grant, conflicting with the interests of the ratepayers in counties and burghs.

ARMY—HOUSEHOLD BRIGADE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT MAHONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Warrant is shortly to be issued with regard to Officers' Promotion in the Household Brigade; and, if so, when it will be promulgated?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that a Warrant was in preparation on the subject, and he would be able to state the intention of the Government with regard to it on Thursday, when he should ask the House to go into Committee on the Army Estimates.

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD—REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND THE LIVING OF SHOREHAM, &c.—QUESTION.
MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after having carried an Act of Parliament by which the living of Ewelme had been severed from the Regius Professorship of Divinity, the present Regius Professor has been allowed to hold the living of Shoreham, in Sussex, together with the canonry of Christ Church?
MR. GLADSTONE: The present Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford holds the living of Shoreham together with the canonry of Christ Church. With that, however, we have nothing to do. The hon. and learned Gentleman is also no doubt aware that the law permits a canon to hold a living, and that it is not in our power to interfere with any arrangements of that kind. Perhaps a duty did accrue to us in this instance, out of a proposal to sever the living of Ewelme from the Regius Professorship. That is to say, if the living now held by the Regius Professor had been a living more onerous than the living of Ewelme, I think it would have been my duty to inquire before severing the living of Ewelme, whether it was the intention of the Regius Professor to give up the present living, in the event of the other being so severed. But inasmuch as I knew the living of Shoreham was both of considerably less emolument, and of one-half the population of the living of Ewelme, I did not consider it to be my duty to enter into any investigation of that kind.

ARMY—THE LATE MILITARY SECRETARY.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be the fact, as stated in a Military newspaper, that an application had been made (during the Recess) to the Treasury for a pension to General Forster, the late Military Secretary; if so, whether it was stated in that application that the officer in question had held for 12 years, at a salary of £2,240, an office which Government had decided ought to be held for five years only at a salary of £1,500, and that he was in receipt of £1,000 a-year from the Colonelcy of the 81st Regiment, which he had held for nine years during his tenancy of the higher office; and what decision was come to by the Treasury?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: An application was made last year to the Treasury containing the statement alluded to. The Treasury took the matter into consideration, and came to the conclusion that General Forster did not come within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, and that, therefore, no pension should be granted to him.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE AMERICAN CASE.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: With reference to our relations with the United States, I wish to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, Whether he has received any information which will enable him to inform the House when the Answer may probably be received as to the friendly communication addressed to the American Government?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information upon that subject; but I learnt from the Foreign Secretary two minutes ago, that in conversation, the American Minister had told him that he did not think the answer would arrive until after the 1st of March.

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

CHINESE COOLIE TRAFFIC.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER, in rising to call attention to the Chinese Coolie Traffic, and to move an Address for Papers, said, he must ask the indulgence of the House for what must be a painful, and he feared would be a long statement. Systematic plans prevailed in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong for kidnapping Chinese, which for cruelty rivalled the practice on the African Coast, or even the Middle Passage, against which Wilberforce and Clarkson raised their voices. In support of this statement he referred to the destruction of the Dolores Ugarte, a vessel which sailed from the Portuguese Settlement of Macao for Peru in May of last year. There were 656 coolies on board, and a disturbance of some kind having taken place the hatchways were fastened down. Owing to an insufficiently explained cause a fire broke out in the hold; and, as the flames could not be extinguished, the captain decided to abandon the ship. The 600 Chinese below were left to their fate; while the crew, and a few of the coolies who were on deck, escaped in the boats, which were only capable of holding 40 men. During a previous voyage of the same vessel 18 coolies jumped overboard in
  530
  consequence of ill-treatment; 25 died from want; and 43 were in such a hopeless state of disease that they were landed at Honolulu. The statements of the few who managed to escape from the burning wreck of the Dolores Ugarte showed that they had been induced by acquaintances, on pretence of work, to make the journey to Macao; but that, instead of having their expectations realized, they were cruelly treated and threatened by emigration agents; that they signed papers which were neither explained nor read to them, and which, if even they were read to them, they could not understand, owing to their ignorance of the language, and were afterwards carried off on board ship against their will. One of these unfortunate men, Low Asow by name, deposed as follows:—
  "I am 36 years old; I am a native of Sun-on A friend of mine named Awong said he could get me work in Hong Kong. I went with him, but he took me to Macao. At first I could not tell whether that was Macao or Hong Kong, but he told me it was Hong Kong. I have never been out of my village. He took me to a barracoon. Awong told me that the regulation of the place was I must be registered at an office before I could be engaged as servant, and that I must say 'Yes' to every question. I signed a contract; it was not read to me, and I did not know what it contained. I was not told where I was to go to either at the barracoon or Emigration Office, and I was under the impression that I was to be a servant in Macao. I was sent on board a Coolie ship under an armed escort. The ship sailed on the 15th, and on the 17th she took fire. I was picked up by a fishing junk. I am a widower, and have no children. I have no father or mother. My father died last year. I was a farmer in Sun-on, doing job work only."
  Another coolie, named Lai Awom, who had been induced to visit Macao by the promise that employment should be found him in a mill-maker's shop, told a similar story. He said—
  "On arrival at Macao, two foreigners came to our boat in a sampan, and took us away. I was taken to the Man Hop barracoon. At first I did not know it was a barracoon; I thought it was Ayee's shop. Therefore I did not question him why he took me there. I arrived at Macao on the 19th day of the 2nd moon. One day I wanted to go out, but a foreigner keeping guard at the door refused me egress. I then concluded the house was a barracoon. I saw Ayee in the barracoon, and I asked him why be took me to such a place. He replied that he was going to be an 'emigrant' also, and that I need not fear his selling me. He told me that I was only to answer to the call of a name, and then I would get eight dollars for doing so; that he would just row me off to a ship and take me back ashore again. But in order to get the eight dollars, I must state before an officer

  531
  that I was willing to go. If I said I would not go, I would be put under chains and placed in a dungeon. Ayee assured me that he would also go before the officer and state the same things, and then get his eight dollars. On the 6th day of the 3rd moon I was taken before the emigration officer. I was asked if I knew where I was to go. I replied that I did not. I was then informed that I was to go to a foreign country to get four dollars a month. The name of the country was not mentioned. My name in the barracoon was Lai Asam. I answered to that name at the Emigration Office, I put my finger-mark to a document: it was not read to me. I marked two places. My finger was held by a Chinaman in that office, and he guided my finger to impress the marks on the places. I was paid eight dollars after marking that paper. I slept two nights in the Emigration Office. On the third day—that was, the 8th, I was escorted on board a ship. Ayee did not row me back as he promised, neither did he go before the emigration officer as he assured me. When I got on board I knew then that I was 'sold,' and I cried the whole of the first night I was on board."
  He narrated other cases to show that frauds of such a nature were practised as to identify the Macao Coolie traffic with the slave trade. He was glad to say that Chief Justice Smale, whose name he could not mention without paying his humble tribute to one who was an honour to his country and the service of the Crown, took a similar view, for when a kidnapped Chinaman who had headed a mutiny against the captain of a French Coolie ship, in which the latter was killed, was brought before him on a charge of murder, that honourable and high-minded Judge refused to allow the man to be tried, but ordered him to be liberated, on the ground that he had only obeyed both the natural and the written law, which placed kidnappers beyond the pale of protection. The miseries of the Coolie labourers on arriving at Peru were revolting beyond description. Their condition and treatment at the Chincha Islands had been vividly pourtrayed in a letter which had been published in one of the public journals. The writer said—
  "These islands, covered to a great depth with guano, are perfectly barren, from the excessive quantity becoming destructive of vegetation; and those employed in transporting the manure to the loading-places are Chinese, whilst negroes and the lowest of the mixed races of Callao and Lima are employed in stowing the cargoes. The Chinese, who, under specious promises, are inveigled to the islands for a term of three years, seldom live to complete the term of their slavery, for the nauseous dust and the overpowering effluvia of ammonia in which they work are of themselves rapidly destructive of life. Sometimes they embark in China, and often at Melbourne, where
  532
  they find nothing to do; and it is well known that shippers receive so much per head for every Chinese they land at the Chinchas. There they are detained by an armed force, hutted in the most miserable manner, fed only after performing a certain amount of labour, and subject to a treatment, of which some idea may be gathered from the following facts:—Whilst we were at the islands, a poor Chinaman threw himself off the rocks, and was dashed to pieces, rather than submit to the tortures that awaited him for having accidentally broken some tackle he was using in his course of labour; and we can form a good notion of the severity of the punishment they are subjected to by the horrible howling constantly heard on the islands. The following are some that are constantly inflicted on the labourers, by order of the commandant, for the most trivial offences, under the eyes of Englishmen and other reputed civilized people; and certainly nothing more devilish, nothing more ingenious, could be invented—namely, hanging in ropes and chains round the waist, and in other ways, from sunrise to sunset, without food during that period, one, two, or more days, in proportion to the magnitude of the offence; and lashing to half-tide buoys, subject to exposure to the water in addition to heat and cold. These punishments we saw inflicted in several instances; and it was reported that one man, whom we saw suspended daily for fully a week, had already suffered a fortnight previously to our arrival. We were also shown a refined instrument of torture, combining the fabled labour of Danaides, with the penalty of death staring the culprit in the face if he failed from exhaustion, or otherwise, in performing the task allotted to him: this was a lighter, with a large hole in the bottom, in which the offender was fastened, with a bucket to save his life by incessant baling. We were also credibly informed that one of the punishments inflicted on the Chinese on the islands is that of placing them on a small point of rock to which they are chained; so small that sleep or change of position must result in their falling off, to hang in their manacles, severely bruised, perhaps, until the period of relief."
  The treatment of coolies in other parts of Peru was equally cruel. He was indebted to a friend of his, well known to that House, both as a literary man and a politician—he referred to Mr. Jenkins, the author of Ginx's Baby, for a statement made by a well-informed Englishman resident at Callao. The writer began by remarking that—
  "England and the United States have abolished slavery, and profess to prevent the carrying of it on; yet here, under the name of 'emigration,' it exists in its worse form—Norfolk Island in its convict days being an improved state of existence. Every year thousands of Chinamen are kidnapped and induced under false pretences to leave their country; many die; many destroy themselves; they mutiny and burn the vessels, proving they are not willing emigrants. On arrival here, if in good health, they are sold at a high price, for eight years; but many are sent to the hospital where they die partly through ignorance of the language, and also from want of a will to live,

  533
  The few who are bought for house and business purposes are fortunate in comparison with their 300 or 400 brethren purchased by some large farmer and sent miles into the interior, where they are locked up in an inclosure at night, turned out at half-past four in small gangs, each with its armed and mounted driver. They get two meals a-day of rice or beans, and on some farms meat twice a-week. Work being over, they are driven back and locked up at six, and this goes on from week's end to week's end, from year's end to year's end; they have no note of time, the Sabbath being like any other day. Those who exist—I will not say live—out their contract have become so degraded and ruined in health that they would be afraid to ask their liberty, having been flogged for much less. The owner of the farm is the only judge, in his absence his overseers; they whip, imprison, put in the stocks, and even kill with impunity; there is no one to interfere. Happy is the Chinaman who dies on the way; to whom can he apply for redress? He does not speak the language, and, after years of residence, only knows the names of the articles used on the farm, and the oaths that have been addressed to him. It was to the slave owner's interest that his slaves were healthy and increased, as each young slave was so much added to his stock—so many dollars more to his cash; but these poor creatures do not see a woman; the farmhouse is a fortified castle with iron bars, the inmates well armed; but the low feeding and hard work leave little spirit in poor John Chinaman to disturb his master."
  To this painful statement he would add the fact that a few years ago some of these unhappy men were enabled to place a Memorial in the hands of the American Government, which was afterwards forwarded to the American Minister at Pekin, when Prince Kung felt very strongly about the miseries inflicted upon his poor countrymen, and expressed a hope that the great American Government would interfere on their behalf, because the Chinese Government was powerless to do so. The state of things in Cuba was equally deplorable; and on this part of the question he was fortified by the high authority of a Cuban gentleman, who had supplied him with accurate and reliable information. From him he learnt that—
  "The Chinese trade for the importation of Chinamen into Cuba for agricultural purposes commenced about the year 1849 or 1850. The first immigration consisted of about 4,000. At first they were not found useful in the sugar plantations; but, subsequently, when it became difficult to obtain negroes from Africa, these disadvantages were overlooked, and the demand for Chinese was revived. One firm then imported 7,000 of them, and the Administration at first exhibited every disposition to adopt and enforce regulations for their protection. Since then the trade has attained very large proportions, some going into it for the sake of profit, and others from
  534
  the illusory notion that Chinese labour would prove a death-blow to slave labour. Agents are stationed in China, at the public expense, for the purpose of engaging the labourers, who are required to sign contracts undertaking to work in Cuba at the place and in the manner appointed on their arrival there—that is to say, according to the usages of the country—for a period of eight years. The agent or his representative (for the contract is transferable like a bill of exchange) undertakes to pay the Chinaman wages amounting to four dollars a month, less the money advanced in China, and the days (in excess of eight) lost by sickness or other causes. Victuals and clothes are to be supplied to him, and at the end of eight years he is entitled to his freedom, but must either re-indenture himself, or leave the country within 60 days. There is reason to believe, especially in the item of wages, that there is a difference between the Chinese and the Spanish version of the contracts. The vessels employed in this trade resemble those with which the 'Middle Passage' has rendered us familiar. The poor Chinese are confined on board in great crowds, with hardly air enough to breathe; and the miseries of their condition often lead to revolts, followed by sanguinary massacres. On arriving at Havana the Chinese are treated exactly like the negroes. They are confined in large barracoons, and sold individually or in lots by a mere endorsement of their contracts, and then taken to the sugar plantations. On the plantation the Chinese labourer is treated as a slave. His scanty wages—a fourth less than is earnt by many of the negroes—hardly suffices to supply him with the necessaries which, from the poverty of his own fare, he is compelled to buy. The frequency with which the Chinese commit assassination or suicide is the best proof of their desperate condition in Cuba. While the proportion of criminals is only 1 in 1,663 for slaves, it is 1 in 175 for Asiatics. In most of these cases, however, the Chinese endeavour to get rid of the intolerable burden of existence by flight, and frequently perish in the woods. In spite of protecting laws, the Chinese are subjected to cruel punishments on the sugar plantations, the overseers being both judges and executioners. Formerly the Chinaman recovered his liberty of action on the expiration of his original period of service; but recent ordinances imposed by Spain compel him to be always under a master or patron, or at once to leave the country—which, of course, for want of means he is unable to do. He is put in jail until he gets a new master, who is compelled to pay the military authorities a sum of money—not long ago 34 dollars—for the privilege. Thus the servitude of the Chinese practically becomes lifelong. Marshal Serrano has given the following testimony:—'As to the Asiatic colonization I cannot but repeat what I have heretofore said, and condemn it (the Coolie trade) as the source of many evils and abuses similar to those inherent in the slave trade. Asiatic colonization, as now carried on, and in spite of regulations, is a temporal slavery, with all the inconveniencies of perpetual slavery. In whatever manner it may be prosecuted, it will prove to be a calamity for Cuba, when all our efforts should be directed to assuring the preponderance of the white race, and when the mingling of a third race with those now peopling the country must inevitably raise a new and darker cloud over the horizon of our unfortu-

  535
  nate Antille.' The evils of Chinese immigration to Cuba are aggravated by the enforced celibacy of the labourers. They are accompanied by no women, and there is a mutual repulsion between them and women of the African race. Thus a state of society is being built up which can only be described as infernal. There are 50,000 Chinese now in Cuba, but their number is constantly increasing. The African slave trade is abolished, but the Chinese slave trade has taken its place."
  Having shown, he said, that the Coolie traffic both in Peru and in Cuba was stained by the worst crimes of the African slave trade, he would next proceed to point out the connection between it and the gambling practices carried on at Hong Kong in houses licensed by the British Government. The poor Chinamen who had lost all their money at these gambling-houses fell easy victims to the agents of that so-called emigration system, and sometimes staked their persons on a last throw. He could not understand how the sanction of our Government should be given to gambling-houses in a British colony, in spite of remonstrances of the Chief Justice and the local merchants. It was certainly remarkable that such a thing should be allowed to go on under our protection at Hong Kong, at a time when it was forbidden not only by every respectable Christian State, but was also excluded from Japan, and even from every part of China where there was an honest and an energetic governor. In reading the Parliamentary Papers on the subject, he had been greatly astonished to find that when General Whitfield, a man who, to judge from the Papers, seemed to him a high-minded gentleman and an honour to the public service, who had been left in temporary charge of the government of Hong Kong, notified to Lord Kimberley that in his judgment the licensing of gambling-houses should be brought to an end, his Lordship answered him in the following telegram:—
  "Your despatch, No. 66, received. Issue fresh licences on expiration of old ones. Make no alterations without instructions."
  He confessed that that telegram was to him inexplicable, and he could not imagine what explanation would be offered. He felt sure that neither Lord Kimberley nor the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) wished to encourage gambling. There must be some explanation which his hon. Friend could give, but he confessed it surpassed his
  536
  ingenuity to conceive what it was. Now, the question was, what was it in the power of the Government to do? There were three points that he would suggest for the consideration of the Government. First, that they should use their influence with the Portuguese Government for the purpose of putting a stop to this trade at Macao; secondly, that they should endeavour to induce foreign Governments to adopt the principles of the Bill brought in by the Under Secretary on the preceding night, for the prevention and punishment of criminal outrages upon natives of the islands in the Pacific Ocean; and, lastly, that they should suppress the gambling-houses in Hong Kong. It was a sad and lamentable state of things, when they had fondly hoped that the slave trade had been put down by the exertions of their fathers, that they found themselves still obliged to apply to the Chinese Coolie traffic the words of a poet who wrote nearly a century ago, and they were the last words with which he would trouble the House—
  "The tender ties of father, husband, friend,
  All bonds of nature in that moment end,
  And each endures, while he draws his breath,
  A wound more fatal than the scythe of death."
  MR. T. HUGHES, in seconding the Motion, tendered his thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the passage in the Queen's Speech, which showed that they were alive to the pressing importance of this subject. If the Bill which would be introduced should prove such a Bill as was promised by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) last year, it would have the effect, as far as England was concerned, of stopping the system of kidnapping which had been referred to. The fact was, that at no period had the position of what were called the inferior races been more critical than at the present time. It was supposed that in 1863 a death blow had been given to slavery and the Slave Trade; but it had since been found that slavery was a hard beast to kill, and that it was growing up like a hydra in different parts of the world under the euphonious names of the Apprentice System and Coolie Emigration. The Slave Trade was now practically flourishing in the Fiji Islands, on the East Coast of Africa, in Peru, in Cuba, and more than anywhere else in China, at the Portuguese settlement of Macao. On the other hand, there

  537
  never was a better time than the present for taking this matter strenuously in hand. What ever might he our differences with the United States in other respects, we were sure of the cordial co-operation of that country in putting down the Slave Trade in all parts of the globe. They had paid much more for the emancipation of their slaves than we had, and they were as proud of their emancipation as we were, and he felt convinced that they would co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in the endeavour to give a final blow to the system. He was sure all the leading nations of Christendom would co-operate with this country in such an object. But it was necessary to go to them with clean hands. The Bill which had been introduced by the Colonial Secretary, and to which he had already referred, would enable us to do this with respect to the Pacific Islands; but we had still a reform of a very pressing nature to carry out at Hong Kong before we could feel satisfied that we had done our duty. With reference to the gambling-houses at Hong Kong, it was perfectly clear from the evidence he had been able to collect, that that system of gambling had fed the Coolie Traffic at Macao. He would not attempt to fix responsibility upon any particular Government, and he would admit that when gambling was first licensed, it was thought that the system would have a beneficial operation upon the natives of Hong Kong. This hope, however, was now entirely frustrated. He must trouble the House with a short sketch of what had taken place in the last two years. The Return which had been already referred to, stated, in September, 1870, that the Lieutenant Governor of Hong Kong, General Whitfield, sent home an announcement that he had received a Minute from the Executive Council advising that the gaming-houses should be closed on the 1st January, 1871; that he had consulted with them, and in accordance with that Minute he had notified to Wo Hang and others that they might continue to hold their licences until the 31st December then next, and no longer. Wo Hang was the Chinaman who was the licensee of the gambling-houses for Hong Kong, and he had paid into the Imperial Exchequer $13,340 a-month on account of these licences. In answer to his despatch,
  538
  General Whitfield received from the Colonial Office a telegraphic despatch, which probably astonished him not a little. By it he was ordered to issue fresh gambling licences upon the expiration of the old ones, and to make no alteration in the system without instructions. The Secretary for the Colonies wrote also, explaining that a temporary occupant of a Governorship, like General Whitfield, should not, except in a case of great emergency, have taken upon himself to alter the policy of the Governor whose place he was for the moment filling. In consequence of this communication, notices for fresh tenders for licences were issued; but General Whitfield wrote that he had been fully under the impression that no more acceptable action could be taken in the colony than to put an end to the legalization of public gambling. He also said that by the licences being put up to open competition, he believed that an increase of $4,000 or $5,000 a-month, or even more, could be obtained. He was right to some extent, because for the new licences the payment rose to $15,000 a-month. The Lieutenant Governor took no further step in the matter except to send home a memorial, signed by 947 Chinese householders, in March, 1871, remonstrating against the system of having public gambling-houses. He (Mr. Hughes) believed a new Governor was about to go out to Hong Kong, and he trusted that he would take with him peremptory instructions to put an end to this licensed system of gambling. It oppeared that no less than $680,000 was paid on account of the public service of 1871, out of a fund which consisted only of the accumulation of fees for licensed gambling in Hong Kong. Their only course was to put an end to the system. There had been a great outcry against re-introducing into France a system of gambling under the authority of Government, and surely it was worse that we should provide for what were called the inferior races in our colonies a system of gambling established under the authority of the British nation, but which Englishmen were prohibited from using themselves. He hoped, not only that the system would be put an end to, but that the $680,000 would be returned, and expended in some way for the benefit of the inhabitants of Hong Kong, who had

  539
  been so seriously injured by us in this matter.
  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, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Papers relating to the Chinese Coolie Traffic,"—(Mr. Robert Fowler,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he supposed that no one would deny the horrors incidental to the Coolie traffic from Macao to Peru and Cuba, though perhaps some persons would be inclined to ask why we should be so Quixotic as to interfere in the matter. The first answer to this was that our foreign policy had never been guided by a pounds, shillings, and pence interest in reference to such things as these, and beyond this we had a direct interest in the matter, because the Chinese Government was disposed to acknowledge with gratitude any influence exercised in favour of their subjects abroad. No doubt, also, the inhabitants of the Celestial nation were inclined to lump together all foreigners under the head of "outer barbarians," and, therefore, the odium of this Coolie traffic, whilst it existed, would fall partly upon us. We had, moreover, a direct interest in the subject, inasmuch as our Australian colonies had been greatly benefited by the introduction of Coolie labour. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would give their earnest attention to this matter, and would adopt a course consonant with the generous policy of this country.
  MR. M'ARTHURtrusted Her Majesty's Government would make representations that would induce other Powers to co-operate with them in the suppression of this nefarious traffic. Accordingly, believing that the Portuguese authorities were the most to blame, it seemed to him that a remonstrance addressed to that Government might have a good effect. What was required was a well-regulated system of emigration, which would put an end to the grave evils of the re-apprenticeship
  540
  system. If the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands were convinced that they would be protected under a system of free Labour, emigration would be stimulated, and much good would result to our colonies.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, that when the Portuguese Consul at Peru reported that certain coolies had been branded with a hot iron, the Government of Macao had immediately interdicted Coolie emigration from that port. He did not know how the Portuguese Government had met that allegation; but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would make such representations to that Government as would induce them to put a stop to such a practice, and that they would endeavour to prevent the regulations relating to this traffic from degenerating into mere formalities. The belief that Europeans were engaged in kidnapping Chinese had led to the perpetration of many crimes on the part of the latter people. He thanked Her Majesty's Government for the Bill they had introduced to afford protection to the Pacific Islanders.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he should be very sorry were he to underrate the importance of the subject, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler), in a speech that was worthy of the highest admiration for its humane character; but he wished that the hon. Member had pointed out what steps other than friendly representations and counsel could be taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Portuguese Government in reference to this matter. Since 1853 successive Governments in this country had done their best with regard to the Chinese and other Governments to secure proper regulations being adopted with respect to Coolie emigration. In 1853 the subject attracted the attention not only of the French and other Governments; but Papers were laid before Parliament on the Coolie traffic containing a statement of those negotiations, and in 1855 an Act was passed for the better regulation of the emigration of Chinese in British vessels. That was communicated in a Circular to Her Majesty's Consuls in January, 1856, urging upon them its strict execution. That answered as far as British vessels were concerned; but, unfortunately, it did not prevent the crimping of emigrants in a country

  541
  like China. Chinese laws forbade the emigration of these natives; but it was connived at, and atrocities were committed, as related in Papers laid before Parliament in 1860. The occupation of Canton in 1859 resulted in establishing a better system of emigration, and Mr. Austin, the Commissioner of the West Indian Labour Agency, founded depôts at Whampoa to replace the crimping which had existed at Canton. The Chinese Governor General recognized these depôts by proclamation, and early in 1860 similar establishments were formed at Swatow. In addition to that, moreover, the free emigration of Chinese was formally stipulated for in the 5th Article of the Treaty of Tien-tsin in October, 1860. In 1865 Prince Kung proposed to Mr. Wade, their Chargé d'Affaires, a set of regulations protecting Chinese emigrating as hired labourers, and on the return of Sir Rutherfurd Alcock these were embodied in a Convention, signed on the 5th of March, 1866. Objections were, however, taken to some of these provisions, both by the French Government and by our own Colonial Office. These objections were the limitation of engagements to five years, the proposal to secure the emigrant a return passage, the restrictions upon the hours of labour, the employment of youths under age, and the probable discontent of the coolies now in the British Colonies, of whom there were 12,000 in British Guiana and Trinidad alone. After various communications, Sir Rutherfurd Alcook was told to propose a modified form of Convention, and it was expected that the old regulations would still remain in force. In June, 1868, the Chinese Government replied to these fresh proposals; they abided by the Convention of 1866, but declined to sanction emigration under the old rules. A long correspondence ensued, and the negotiations were partially suspended owing to the absence of instructions to the French Minister at Pekin. The French Government were now renewing negotiations, which were proceeding at Pekin. As regarded the Chinese Government, it should be remembered that the Treaty of Tien-tsin provided emigration regulations; that the Chinese Government proposed another set of regulations in 1865; that a Convention was made out of them in 1866, which still remained in force; that the Convention was not rati-
  542
  fied by the British and French Governments, and that negotiations were still proceeding at Pekin as to the exportation from Macao to Peru. In October, 1866, Lord Clarendon instructed Sir A. Magennis to represent to the Portuguese Government that the mortality attendant on emigration from Macao to Peru might be lessened by the adoption of proper regulations. Their reply was, that they would adopt the regulations of the Convention recently signed at Pekin. It did not appear, however, that a stop was put to these abuses. Public attention on the subject had culminated in March, 1869, when Lord Clarendon received a despatch from Mr. Jerningham, stating that 48 Chinamen had been branded as slaves in Peru. The Governor of Macao thereupon prohibited emigration to Callao, and Lord Clarendon directed Sir Charles Murray to remonstrate. In January, 1870, the Portuguese Government informed Sir Charles Murray that the story of the branding was untrue. Meanwhile Her Majesty's Government had determined, as far as in them lay, to discountenance these emigration atrocities, and in 1869 Lord Clarendon informed the Colonial Office that, looking at the way in which Chinese crimps obtained Chinese emigrants, and the sufferings they endured in other countries, and especially in Peru, they intended to prohibit the departure from Hong Kong of Chinese subjects in any other than British vessels to any place not within the dominions of the Queen. This was now in force, and had been communicated to Peru. In November, 1870, occurred the case of the Coolie vessel Nouvelle Penelope, and about the same time the tragedy on board the Dolores Ugarte, stranded at Honolulu, with the sufferings of many coolies on board. Earl Granville addressed a despatch to Lisbon on the subject, calling attention to the continued cruelty and suffering to which the Chinese coolies were subjected, expressing the earnest hope that the Portuguese Government would continue to support and assist the attempt of the Chinese Government to put an end to such atrocities. A further report received from Her Majesty's Consul at Canton in May was communicated to the Portuguese Government last June. But, unfortunately, that was not the only case of atrocity that occurred, for circumstances came to the knowledge of the

  543
  Government, showing that the Dolores Ugarte, under the name of the Don Juan, was again employed in the Macao Coolie traffic, and was subsequently burnt with 500 coolies on board. On intelligence of this, Earl Granville on the 28th of last July sent an instruction to Mr. Doria to remonstrate in friendly but earnest terms, and he (Viscount Enfield) hoped to be able to produce that despatch, or extracts from it, at a later period of the Session. The Portuguese Government, in reply, excused themselves from the charge of inhumanity, and enclosed a copy of their regulations at Macao for 1871, maintaining that those regulations were sufficient for their purpose if they were properly carried out. As a summary of what England, through her Government, had tried to do, he would mention the Chinese Passenger Act of 1855, the emigration system established in 1860, the formal assent of the Chinese Government to emigration under proper regulations in the Treaty of Tien-tsin, the prohibiting of Hong Kong as a depôt for emigration to any but British colonies and in British ships, and the remonstrances on all occasions with Portugal against the atrocities at Macao. This was how the matter stood up to the close of last year. With regard to Cuba, no very recent accounts had been received by the Government of the treatment of the coolies there; their numbers were very great, but there was reason to believe that they were not exposed to as great sufferings as the coolies in Peru. Our agents did not speak in their reports of any cruelties being exercised towards them. They received much better wages, a cook, he was told—and the Chinese were very expert in cooking—getting something like £10 a month. They were, moreover, subject to no punishments except at the hands of an overseer of their own nation, and if not paid well they would commit suicide, fear of punishment having no effect upon them. Our representative at Cuba reported that the condition of the coolies there was far better off than was the case, from what he had heard, in Peru. He thought the efforts of successive Governments in the way of conventions and friendly remonstrances had not entirely failed of effect. With regard to the Motion, he hoped the hon. Member for Penrhyn would be satisfied with his promise that he would endeavour to present
  544
  further Papers at the earliest opportunity. The subject was one in which the Foreign Office took a deep interest, and he trusted that, as time went on, their efforts would produce the desired effect, so that the feelings of Englishmen would not be shocked in future years by a repetition of atrocities on which the hon. Member had dwelt with so much force and good taste.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYwished, on behalf of the West India planters, to make some observations on the matter. It appeared to him that there were two subjects mixed up together which were wholly different in their character—namely, the emigration of coolies from Hong Kong to the West Indies, and the traffic in coolies from Macao to Cuba and Peru. With regard to the former, nothing could be more beneficial to the Chinese themselves, as well as the West Indies, than this emigration; but, unfortunately, the Convention of Sir Rutherfurd Alcock, unauthorized and still unratified, though very well intended, imposed conditions so onerous upon the system, as to prove almost a complete obstacle to the continuance of that emigration. Those conditions related to the free back-passage of coolies to their country at the termination of five years' service. The practical proof of the success of this emigration, until in 1866 it was so stopped, was the fact that the Chinese brought to the West Indies, after the expiration of their services, remained generally in the West Indies, and many of them entered into fresh indentures after their apprenticeship expired, while others continued to work there as free labourers, and some, after going back to China to invest their savings, returned to service in the West Indies, bringing out their relations. It was only, therefore, to be desired that Sir Rutherfurd Alcock's Convention might be so far altered as to prevent its being an obstruction to this emigration. The West India planters would consent to a free back-passage given after 10 years, instead of five years as required by the Convention. The statement of atrocities incident to the Coolie traffic from the Portuguese Settlement of Macao to Cuba and Peru was no doubt fully borne out—reviving many of the horrors of the old African slave trade. But the regulations of the Portuguese Government on the subject were very much the same as those which the

  545
  British Government had made in respect to the emigration of coolies from Hong Kong. The evil was the want of power on the part of the Portuguese Government to enforce them. The prevalence of the gambling system in Hong Kong was no doubt to be deplored; but he did not think that the connection said to exist between that system and the Macao traffic in coolies had been satisfactorily made out, unless, indeed, the Chinese, on being ruined by gambling at Hong Kong, sold themselves as coolies to Macao exporters. He, however, concurred in the desirability of putting down those gambling-houses in Hong Kong, as a separate question from that before the House. He doubted whether legislative action could be taken analogous to the measure proposed for checking the Fiji atrocities, for in that case we had one side of the traffic in our own hands—namely, the arrival of the kidnapped slaves in Queensland, a colony where the British authorities could inflict the penalties enacted against such an offence. But when they were dealing with matters under the supervision of the Portuguese Government, and in no part of it coming under our own, he did not see what power the British authorities had except to make remonstrances to that friendly Power, which appeared as anxious as ourselves to attain the same object. The only step we could take beyond remonstrance would be actual treaty. It appeared to him that in this and every opposition to slave trade, our efforts ought rather to be directed to the place of demand for slaves than to that of supply. In all our endeavours to put down that horrible traffic, we might feel assured of the co-operation of France and America on the seas as well as that of the Portuguese Government on the spot. The present check by increased expense to the legitimate and beneficial well-regulated emigration of coolies from Hong Kong, was promoting the objectionable traffic from Macao.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he would admit the possibility, that while one of two kinds of coolie emigration referred to was wholly bad, the other might be, to a great extent, good. He hoped the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. E. N. Fowler) would be satisfied with the Returns offered by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and with the way in which the offer was made.
  546
  He was glad the subject had been brought before the House, because it had called attention to a crying evil which had been too much lost sight of. The fact was, that the slave trade, under various forms and varying names, was at this moment as rife in the world as it ever was in the worst times, when so much was heard of the horrors of the Middle Passage. With reference to the coolie traffic from Hong Kong, and the influence of the gambling-houses upon it, he would put it to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary whether it was not a fact that a high official at Hong Kong, who was discharged some years ago for complicity in this traffic, was not only back again in the service of the Government, but using his influence to encourage the coolie traffic as well as to promote gambling-houses? It might be safely left to the Foreign Office to bring the weight of English opinion to bear upon Portugal and Spain in the matter; but though, no doubt, there was a great difference between emigration from Hong Kong and that from Macao, he could not agree with his noble Friend as to the happy state of the coolies in Cuba. Macao had very little trade with any other part of the world, but was maintained almost solely by the gambling-houses and the coolie traffic, which they persisted in carrying on in a manner which was said to be in defiance of the Portuguese authorities.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that if he had had any notice of the point which had been raised in regard to the Convention of Sir Rutherford Alcock, he should have been prepared with a detailed statement on the subject. He quite agreed with the propriety of drawing a distinction between the coolie traffic from Macao to South America and that to the West Indies. That task had been so well fulfilled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), that it was only necessary to say, with regard to the importation of Chinese labourers to the colonies of this country, that, if any amendment could be introduced, hon. Gentlemen might rely on the action of Her Majesty's Government, as it was their most earnest desire to do everything to countenance better treatment of the coolies, and to afford increased facilities for their returning home. He had risen on account of the pointed reference

  547
  which, had been made to the gambling-houses at Hong Kong, and to the telegram which appeared to have excited so much uneasiness in the mind of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. B. N. Fowler). With regard to the gambling-houses—supposing that question to be properly connected with the Chinese coolie traffic—hon. Gentlemen must not suppose that that question was entirely one-sided. The Chinese were addicted to two vices—gambling and opium-taking—and it was doubtful whether any law could prevent them from indulging in one practice or the other. Some people were of opinion that the suppression of licences would bring about effects similar to those which they apprehended would result in this country from the passing of the measure of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—that it would lead to a great deal of illicit traffic—and he was bound to say that the information in the possession of the Colonial Office went a great way towards justifying that supposition. That was the theory on which Sir Richard MacDonnell acted, and he must say that the Papers which had been presented to the House somewhat justified that policy. In a despatch dated 12th April, 1870, he stated there was a large diminution of crime. In March, 1870, the Chief Justice of the colony, in his charge to the grand jury, also stated there had been a great diminution of crime in the colony during the administration of Sir Richard MacDonnell—that was, since the establishment of licensed gaming-houses. The Colonial Office instructed General Whitfield not to revoke the licensing system. No doubt he was actuated by the best motives in his intention to do so; but they considered it was a strong measure for a Deputy Governor to suddenly reverse the policy of his predecessor, who was likely at the expiration of his leave to return to his office. Another reason was that the Chief Justice had sent a despatch reflecting on the state of the police, and it was the opinion of the Government that the sudden suppression of these licensed gaming-houses would be productive of great evil in the colony until the police had been reformed. Since that time they had been reformed, and he believed that now the gaming-houses might be reformed without any danger to the public peace. Ever since he had been connected with the Colonial Office,
  548
  he and his noble Friend (Lord Kimberley) had been of opinion that the encouragement of gambling was an offence against public morality, and they had never wavered in their policy. He heard with regret the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin). He must say, with great deference to his hon. Friend, that if he had occasion to find fault with any colonial officials, he should name them; or, if he would communicate with him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), he would endeavour to obtain for him such information as would prevent him from making any statement against an individual which might afterwards turn out to be unjust.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he was in full possession of the information; but he purposely abstained from mentioning any names and addresses, which, however, he was fully prepared to do.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in conclusion, said, Sir Richard MacDonnell had full instructions to suppress the licensed gambling-houses, and he was now engaged in putting an end to those houses in the colony. He regretted he had not been able to make a full statement upon the general question of coolie labour traffic in moving the introduction of the Pacific Islanders' Protection Bill on the previous evening, but hoped to do so at a future stage of the Bill. He could assure the House that wherever the traffic in slaves existed, Her Majesty's Government would do their best to put it down.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER, in reply, said, he would withdraw his Motion, and in doing so would suggest that the Government should communicate with foreign Governments, with a view of making the carrying on of the coolie traffic a breach of International Law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

JURY SYSTEM.—OBSERVATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. LOPES, in rising to call attention to the defective state of the Law with regard to the summoning, attendance, and remuneration of Jurymen; and to move—
  "That the Law relating to Juries ought to be dealt with as a whole in a Bill to be brought in by the Government at the earliest possible period,"

  549
  said, he brought the subject forward in the firm belief that the existing state of things was inconvenient and onerous to a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects, was unsatisfactory and distasteful to the litigants and suitors, and not at all in keeping with the desires and feelings of those who were concerned in the administration of the law. It might be very justly said that jurymen, and emphatically London jurymen, were the worst used individuals within the bills of mortality. Failing to appear when summoned—and often when late—they were fined without the opportunity of explanation. Called upon to discharge most important and responsible duties, they were regarded with unmitigated dissatisfaction if they failed to unravel and solve difficult matters of fact, which the most astute and subtle advocates were employed to mystify and confuse. Kept waiting day after day in the unhealthy precincts of a court, their health and private convenience were entirely ignored, and if they were merchants or traders their time was considered of no value. He feared, unless an adequate remedy was applied to the existing state of things, that before long jurymen would become such discontented beings that they would shirk their duties when they could, and that when they could not do so, would negligently discharge them. Theirs was not a "sensational" or sentimental grievance—the evils complained of had been recognized over and over again by Parliament, and had been descanted on by almost every Judge of the Superior Courts. In 1867 the subject was referred to a Select Committee; but being unable to complete its labours that Session, it was re-appointed in 1868. A number of most competent witnesses were examined, and a most elaborate Report was presented to Parliament, in which the Committee recognized all the grievances of which jurymen complained, and it recommended a speedy amendment of the law. Moreover, in 1869 the Judicature Commission in their Report recognized the defective state of the law, and in 1870 a Bill was brought in by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield). That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, when another elaborate Report was made, and in the end that Bill, with amendments, became law. That Act in itself was
  550
  crude, insufficient, and inadequate, but it contained many valuable provisions, and he thought the public were much indebted to the noble Lord for paying so much attention to the subject. It provided for the remuneration of jurymen on a higher scale than before; but in consequence of the machinery for providing a fund out of which to pay them being found to be inadequate, that clause had to be repealed, and, in point of fact, the remuneration stood now precisely as it did before the passing of the Act of 1870. The root of the evil, however, was in the insufficient and inadequate compilation of the jury lists. Hon. Members might be aware that the jury lists were prepared by the overseers in September every year. They were afterwards submitted to the magistrates, who allowed them. But for the somewhat onerous duty thus cast upon overseers they received no remuneration; and he regretted to say that the result was this—that the jury lists of one year were frequently simply a copy of the jury lists of the year before, or, it might be, of the jury lists of 10 years before. And thus no notice was taken of removals, of deaths, or of those who, since the lists were originally prepared, had become qualified in the parish to serve as jurymen; and it came to this—that the duties of a juryman, instead of extending over a large number of the inhabitants, were confined to a comparatively few. Mr. Burchell, the Under Sheriff of Middlesex, stated, before the Committee of 1867 and 1868, that the number of special jurymen in Middlesex was nominally 1,800, but of that number only two-thirds were available, from the cause he had already stated; but under an improved system Mr. Burchell thought the number would be increased to between 6,000 and 8,000; and he attributed all the complaints that had arisen, not from any breakdown of the system, but from the careless manner in which the lists were prepared. Mr. Abbott, the Under Sheriff for Surrey, also spoke of the imperfect character of the lists, and expressed an opinion that if proper returns were made there need be no excuses of "gone away," "not known," or "dead," and that the number of available jurymen for Surrey would be increased four-fold under an improved system. The Judicature Commission, in their Report of 1868, expressed an opi-

  551
  nion that the jury lists ought to be made out with greater care, and in their Report of 1869 they stated the complaints were well founded, but that they were chiefly attributable to the imperfect mode in which the jury lists were framed, and that it was manifest that the duties were not fairly distributed amongst those who ought to be called on to discharge them. He would not say whether it would be better that the jury lists should be made out by the clerks of the assessment committees, or, as some had suggested, that the lists should be revised annually by the revising barristers, when they revised the Parliamentary lists; but it was evident that if it was to be done properly it should be done by more competent persons than at present discharged the duty. The old qualification for special juryman was an esquire, or a person of higher degree, banker, or merchant; but the Act of 1870 introduced a rating qualification of £100 in towns containing a population of 20,000 and upwards, and of £50 elsewhere; but he thought a beneficial change might be made by introducing on the list persons who lived independent of trade and profession, and to whom a little wholesome occupation would be very acceptable. At the present moment it was left to each individual to determine for himself whether he should serve on a special or on a common jury. Suppose a person who ought to serve on a special jury thought a common jury had less to do, what happened? He was a banker and wrote himself down as a gentleman. Well, the result was he was called on the common jury. On the other hand, a rag merchant, if you liked, or some other person in a very low position, thought it might be better to serve on a special jury, and what did he do? He described himself as a merchant, and, therefore, he was called on a special jury. He (Mr. Lopes) submitted that it was a very great mistake to leave it to the discretion of individuals to determine on which of the juries they should serve. Again, why not assimilate the qualification of juries in cities and boroughs with those of the counties? The Committee to whom the Bill—which afterwards became the Juries Act, 1870—was referred, found that, owing to the large increase in the burgess roll, caused by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the number of persons qualified to
  552
  serve as jurors under the freeman's qualification in certain cities and boroughs, the qualification in cities and boroughs was generally too low, and they were of opinion that a Bill should be brought in by the Government, containing provisions for the amendment of the law in that respect. There was another mode of relieving special jurors in civil cases. The number might be reduced to seven, who would form as good a tribunal as twelve, unless there was occult power in the latter numeral. If this reduction were made, the valuable time of merchants would be saved; causes would not so frequently go off for want of special jurymen, and there would not be so frequent a necessity for praying a tales. Moreover, each juryman would be urged by an increased responsibility to give increased attention to the evidence and verdict. He did not propose to interfere with the number of jurymen in criminal cases. With regard to the important question of remuneration, he maintained that there should be a reasonable and fair payment for the services of jurors, who ought to be adequately remunerated. The Judge, counsel, attornies, witnesses, and even the crier, who called for silence, were remunerated adequately, and the jurymen were the only persons amongst the performers whose claims were overlooked. In the Juries Act, 1870, provision was made for the payment of £1 1s. a-day for a special juror, and 10 s. for a common one; and that, he held, was a fair remuneration, and a decided improvement upon the former scale, by which a special juror received £1 1s. for each cause, a common juror 8d., a sheriff's not less a sum than a groat; but unfortunately, as he before observed, the machinery of the Act failed in that respect at least, and that particular clause was repealed in the next Session. The question had been raised, by whom should the payment be made? He submitted that the State ought to do this, and not the parties in the case; and he knew no reason why, if the Judge who dispensed the law was paid by the Crown, the jury who tried the facts should not also be remunerated from the same source. He would propose, in order to meet any objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the State might reimburse itself by the imposition of a stamp on every process by

  553
  which legal proceedings were originated—on a writ in the Superior Courts, and on a plaint in County Courts. In conclusion, he would express a hope that the Government were prepared to bring in a measure which might provide an adequate remedy for the present defective state of the law. He had already had some encouragement from the Attorney General to look for a step in that direction; and no doubt his hon and learned Friend's experience in the celebrated cause that had occupied upwards of 80 days in hearing would induce him to urge some remedial measures in regard to the remuneration of juries.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in seconding the Motion, said, he could testify to the great dissatisfaction which prevailed in the mercantile constituency which he had the honour to represent at the operation of the present law. The same set of men were over and over again called to Westminster or to Guildhall to discharge the duties of jurymen, while others equally competent obtained a total exemption. It was no wonder, then, that so many suffered from a sense of injustice, seeing that their private affairs were neglected owing to the frequent calls upon their time. The evidence taken before the Committees of 1868 and 1870 bore out all the statements of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lopes). The Committee of 1870 reported that the Bill of that year was quite unsatisfactory; but they felt that the question was so large and serious that it ought to be dealt with by the Government as a whole, and their Report contained a strong recommendation to that effect. The statement that there were only 1,800 persons in Middlesex who might be taken as special jurors would take most persons by surprise when the enormous population of the county and its vast interests were taken into account; and he thought the list of special jurors might be made considerably longer than it was at present. Then there might be an official revision of the lists. Nothing of the kind was done, for serving on juries was by no means popular, though the lists of voters were regularly examined. There was a special reason why the lists should be revised—namely, because the duties of jurors being irksome, almost every means was adopted by persons liable to serve to escape the ordeal altogether, and thus
  554
  the duties fell unduly upon others. The suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend as to the reduction in the number of jurymen called for careful consideration from the Government. Trials in County Courts by a jury of five were successful enough; indeed, their verdicts were quite as satisfactory as those recorded by a larger number in the Superior Courts. Even in the great case now in course of trial, no disadvantage was experienced from there being a smaller number than 12 on the jury. If his hon. and learned Friend's proposition of seven were adopted, he believed there would be greater readiness in Middlesex and large towns throughout the kingdom to undertake duties which almost every liable person now sedulously avoided.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Law relating to Juries ought to be dealt with as a whole in a Bill to be brought in by the Government at the earliest possible period,"—(Mr. Lopes,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to one point that had not been noticed by either of the hon. Gentlemen who preceded him. It had reference to the state of the law as affecting persons living in large towns, which had quarter sessions of their own. According to the law at present many persons whose qualifications rendered them liable to serve on a jury were in such a town exempt from serving on a quarter sessions jury, but not at the assizes. He believed that was the law. There was, however, no machinery by which they could be brought to serve at the assizes. The clerk of the peace in his own county had, after inquiries into the matter, come to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to enter such persons in the jury books, for supposing the law did not justify that course, wherever it was adopted criminals would be convicted by a jury improperly constituted. He therefore hoped that, while legislating on the subject, this uncertainty of the law would be satisfactorily cleared away, for he

  555
  thought it was a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Government.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, however the Act of 1870 might have failed—and it had not answered the expectation of its promoters, for want of a fund out of which jurymen could be adequately reimbursed—he did not think it would be practicable to provide remuneration for jurymen by means of stamps affixed to writs and plaints, as suggested by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lopes), since he (Mr. Wheelhouse) feared that the country would be dissatisfied with that plan; and, indeed, it might operate, where the suitor was very poor, to close the door of justice against him; but he agreed with him in thinking that the number of jurors might with advantage be reduced. He had some experience of the jury system, and he had never heard any complaint that County Court juries had not done their work quite as well as juries consisting of 12 persons. What he would suggest would be that cases should be tried by juries of five or seven at the option of the parties to the suit. If some plan were devised by which anyone who had served on a jury should not be required in the jury box again for three years, great relief would be afforded. In small jurisdictions there might be some little difficulty in making this provision, though none which might not be got over; but in any of the counties of which he had experience there would be no difficulty whatever. He would also suggest that jurors, according to the old-fashioned system, should, as far as possible, be taken from the same neighbourhood, and not be brought from distances of perhaps 50 or 100 miles. As for the qualification, in his view any legislation on the subject ought to sweep away altogether the distinction between the special and common jury lists. If gentlemen had nothing to do, it would be well that they should be brought into the box to discharge the duties of common jurymen. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that jurymen should be paid by the State, as well as Judges. In these days, when men's time was of greater value than ever, the Treasury ought to provide sufficient funds for dealing with all questions of justice. On the whole matter generally, he thought that no one who knew the jury system could fail to perceive the neces-
  556
  sity of dealing with the subject as early as possible.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, a great deal was said about altering the law on this subject; but what he contended for was that juries should be got rid of altogether. They had got rid of them at County Courts, except where either party requested to have them. True, the Judges of the Superior Courts objected to the entire responsibility of deciding cases which would devolve upon themselves alone; but as they were paid officers of State, they ought not to shrink from any duties that Parliament deemed it right to impose upon them. The Judge of one of the Superior Courts had an objection to try Election Petitions; but that did not prevent Parliament from passing an Act throwing upon the Judges the responsibility of deciding cases of that description, in regard to which they now act as jury and Judge. What remained to be done was to settle the jury question by making the Superior Courts analogous in that matter to County Courts, and to limit the number of the jury, whenever either party desired to have their cause tried in that way. He was strongly opposed to the payment of jurors out of the public funds; and in that particular he sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When parties went to law he thought both sides were, more or less, in the wrong; therefore they ought to be called upon to pay the cost of their own causes. That was the way to get out of the difficulty, so far as civil trials were concerned. In criminal causes, as between the Crown and the public, it was not unreasonable to call upon the public to pay the cost of the jury. With a view to the reduction of the expense, which would fall upon the parties in civil causes, it was also desirable to reduce the number on a jury to seven or five.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he was of opinion, as the result of a long experience in the trial of civil causes, that a jury of seven was sufficiently numerous to insure the due administration of justice; but he could not agree with the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Collins), that it would be well that questions of fact should be taken out of the hands of juries and left for the decision of Judges only. If cases were tried in the Superior Courts without juries, it

  557
  would soon become well known what views were held by certain Judges on particular classes of cases, and all sorts of trickery would be resorted to by suitors to get their causes tried by Judges who had shown a leaning to the view they themselves held. In his opinion, regard for law in this country was, in a great degree, kept up by the fact that the Judges were confined to questions of law, while all matters of fact were left to the decision of juries. The multitude of appeals arising in the Courts of Chancery on almost every day showed the evil of leaving single Judges to decide upon the facts as well as the law of cases coming before them; and the number of reversals by one or two Judges of the decisions of a single Judge tended to reduce the law to a state of most mischievous uncertainty. Again, in railway cases—in which, as he humbly conceived, Judges had gone too far in taking upon themselves the decisions of questions of fact, which were properly questions for a jury—when an appeal went to the Exchequer Chamber it was generally found that three Judges took one view and three the other. The same might be said of those cases in which the Judges had taken upon themselves to decide questions of reasonable and probable cause, which in their nature were properly questions of fact for the jury. The consequence of this was interminable litigation and enormous expense to the parties, which would continue unless Parliament stepped in and restored the decision of facts to the jury from whom it had been withdrawn. He therefore did not think it desirable to introduce the County Court system into the Superior Courts.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he entirely concurred with many of the remarks which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Lopes); but there were some observations with which he could not agree, and some points upon which he could not, without consultation with his Colleagues, speak with any degree of authority. One of the points coming under the last remark was that relating to the payment of jurymen by the State. He could not, of course, say anything upon this point without consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Another question upon which a great deal might be said on either side was that anomaly
  558
  of the adequacy of the remuneration now given to jurymen in payment of their services. It might be said that under the existing law the jurymen were as much a part of the tribunal as the Judge, and ought to be paid as the Judge was, out of the coffers of the State; but the cases did not quite run on all fours, for duties of State had been thrown on other persons, and honourably discharged, for which no compensation was given, and, indeed, for which it would be inexpedient that any remuneration should be offered. Then, again, the juror was only occasionally called upon to discharge his functions, while the Judge had to devote his whole life to the study of the law which it was his duty to administer. He could not agree with the view that it would be well, even in cases where the parties did not desire one, for the assistance of a jury to be dispensed with. His reason for taking that view was this—they lived in a country the institutions of which were mixed up in a vast and complicated system, the working of which was not to be measured by its direct and immediate effects, but by the indirect and consequent effects it had upon other portions of the social and political machine. Therefore, he should exceedingly dislike to see the time when the general public were divorced from all interest or concern in the administration of justice. He regarded juries as a most useful institution, because they interested the general public in the administration of justice, and afforded them an education which hardly anything else could give. Still less would it be desirable to dispense with juries in the trial of cases where passion, or party, or class interests were concerned. It was a great safeguard not only to the parties interested, but to the character of the Bench itself, that there should be in the jury a bulwark, as it were, between the decisions arrived at and the Bench, which would otherwise have to decide both upon the facts and the law of cases. A wise man once expressed an opinion in which he (the Attorney General) entirely concurred, that a jury was an institution of great value, because it compelled the Judge to state his opinion upon cases in a manner intelligible to 12 ordinary men. With regard to the broad general question, however, he entirely agreed in the view that

  559
  the state of the English law with reference to juries was little less than a scandal. He had long considered the question, and came to the conclusion that it was because jurors were a class with no means of combination that their interests were so very little regarded by persons who ought to take care of them. When on circuit he had frequently remarked the hardship inflicted upon small farmers by being dragged away from their farms at a critical period of the year, and compelled to live for perhaps a week or more in a crowded assize town, where lodgings and other accommodation had for the time run up to famine prices; and looking at the imperious way in which they were treated, if he were not a barrister, he certainly would not wish to be a juryman. But that state of things was not altogether the fault of the existing law, bad as that was. His hon. and learned Friend was right in complaining of the inadequate and unfair way in which the jury lists were frequently compiled, and he had often thought, by seeing the same old familiar faces over and over again in the jury-box, that there must be thousands, if not tens of thousands, in the country who, somehow or other, never came under that great system of education, and never did succeed in getting into a jury-box at all. But the grievance did not arise only from the preparation of those lists. It arose chiefly from the execution of those lists. It was probable that some influence was at work which probably it was not desirable to describe. He remembered very well some time ago stating to a man of wealth and position that he never had the honour of addressing him as a special juror either at Guildhall or Westminster. The man replied—"I don't suppose you ever did; I always get off." He (the Attorney General) asked—"How do you get off?" The man replied that was an easy matter, and he (the Attorney General) found out from this man, who was candid enough to state the truth, that there was some method by which he managed not to serve as a juryman. All this showed that the compilation of the list and the power of summoning required amendment. The law itself was really not to blame, but those who administered it; and he, for one, should like to see the necessary steps taken with a view to amend that state of things. It had been
  560
  said by one hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wheelhouse) that he should like to see the same class of men serving on special and common juries, and the class of persons from which special juries were drawn serving on the juries in criminal courts. The reason why the hon. and learned Member did not see that at the present moment, was that the administrators of the law on the subject violated both the text and the spirit of it. The Jury Act intended that all persons competent to serve on juries should do duty in their turn both as common and special jurors; and it would be gross injustice if that were not the case, so that the practical injustice which was done arose, as he had said, from a violation of the law. Some years ago Sir Robert Peel informed a friend of his that the result of the proper carrying out of the law in the county of Lancaster was a diminution of the number of causes tried at Liverpool by special juries, and the empannelling of a very superior class of persons on the ordinary juries in that county. With regard to the number of persons who should form a jury, he knew no magic in the number "twelve," and quite agreed that in all ordinary trials, both civil and criminal, a jury of seven would be amply sufficient. The only distinction he would make was in trials for murder, and there he would adhere to the present number, for he should not like any man's life to be taken away by the consent of a less number than 12 of his fellow men. In conclusion, he could not undertake to say when it would be possible to undertake legislation on the subject, but the subject was one which had honestly engaged his attention for some years; and at the earliest possible moment he would bring in a Bill in accordance with the statement he had just made, and which, he hoped, would satisfy his hon. and learned Friend who had brought the question before the House. With that assurance, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would be content, and withdraw his Motion.
  MR. LOPESsaid, that after the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he should not press his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  PAUMBEN CHANNEL.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE, in rising to call attention to the necessity for opening the Paumben Channel, and thereby facilitate the trade from Europe to the ports situated in the Bay of Bengal, said, that recent surveys had shown that the proposed scheme was quite practicable, and not only that, but the importance of doing the work was increased by the fact that during the present year ships were passing through the Suez Canal, many of them bound for the Bay of Bengal, at the rate of 100 per month, and that the opening of the Paumben Channel would save such vessels on the voyage out and in a distance of no less than 720 miles. Two reports had been made on the subject, one recommending the cutting of a new Channel and the other that the existing Channel should be cleared. He himself thought the first-named plan would be the best; but, in order that some steps might be taken as soon as possible, he wished to have the reports and accompanying plans and estimates laid on the Table of the House. Without further detaining the attention of the House, he hoped the Government would devote their earnest attention to that urgent question, and would not object to produce the Papers he asked for.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) of not entering upon the merits of the rival schemes bearing upon the opening of the Channel reduced his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) task to one of a very slight character. He would have great pleasure in producing the report, as well as any other Papers which could throw light upon the subject. The real difficulty was not any doubt as to the desirability of opening the Channel; but the great question was, who was to do it? because there were three parties involved—the Imperial Government, and the Governments of India and Ceylon. The engineer, Mr. Townsend, who went out to Ceylon, had reported in favour of the desirability of opening the Channel; but with regard to the specific proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend, of which he had last year estimated the expense at £91,000, Mr. Townsend was of opinion that such estimate did not represent the tenth part of
  562
  the sum which the proposal would require. He advocated another plan in preference, and thereupon ensued a considerable debate in the Legislative Council of Ceylon, and they came to the conclusion that the great work to which the resources of the colony ought, in the first place, to be applied, was the formation of a harbour at Colombo. As far as that colony was concerned, that was a most important and pressing question. Then as to the Indian Government, there were considerations in regard to lighthouses and the completion of soundings in the gulf which involved expense, and they must leave to that Government to decide when that particular expense should be incurred by them. So far as he could understand the question, he thought it was desirable that the work should be accomplished in some form or other, and his hon. and gallant Friend had done good service in directing public attention to the subject.

TRANSFER OF LAND.

  OBSERVATIONS. RESOLUTION.
  MR. GREGORY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the Land Transfer Act, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that further facilities should be afforded for the transfer of land,"
  said, he did not propose to consider on the present occasion the question of title to property in regard to the Law of Entail and Settlement, but would confine his remarks to the ordinary transfer of land from one man to another. In order to elucidate the subject, he must describe the process now gone through in transferring landed property from a vendor to a purchaser. When a solicitor was instructed to sell an estate, he first had to examine the deeds with a view to ascertain whether the title was good for a period of 60 years, though in practice the time was generally reduced to 40 years. An abstract of the deeds was made, from which the solicitor could see the nature of the title and all defects and difficulties in regard to it. These were either removed by further investigation, or else it was provided in the special conditions under which the purchaser was to buy the property that they should not be an impediment to the sale.

  563
  The estate was then put up for sale, and the abstract was handed to the purchaser's solicitor, who compared it with the original documents, and prepared his requisitions on every point of which he had any doubt. All this, of course, involved considerable delay and expense, and supposing the title to be ultimately made out, as was usually the case, the investigation bound no one except the actual purchaser; so that in the event of the estate, or any portion of it, being resold, the same process had to be gone through again. The great hardship of such a state of things was so generally felt, that as long ago as 1857 a Royal Commission was issued for the purpose of considering the subject, and it made certain recommendations as to the registration of title, the general effect of which was that the registration should be the root of the title, so that any beneficial operation of that registration would be postponed until a good title was conferred by the lapse of time. These recommendations were not acted upon; but in 1859 two Bills were introduced by Lord Cairns, then Solicitor General, and, in his opinion, it was greatly to be regretted that they came to a premature end, for if they had been passed many of the still existing abuses would have long ago disappeared. Lord Cairns proposed to establish a Landed Estates Court, and to give it facilities for issuing declarations of title—not necessarily an absolute, indefeasible title, but a qualified title, if the Court so thought fit; while, by another Bill, he proposed to establish a Registry of Titles. The question was revived in 1862, when an Act for establishing a registry of title was passed. That Act, however, required that the titles registered should be what were called valid marketable titles, or, in other words, such titles as the Court of Chancery would enforce on an unwilling purchaser. There was no doubt that in practice that Act had been a failure. Two competent—most competent and zealous—gentlemen were appointed Registrars; but notwithstanding their zeal and ability the Act had not operated, in consequence of the burdens imposed on the parties registering. According to the provisions of the statute, persons wishing to register were obliged to show an absolute indefeasible title of 60 years, and in order to do that it was frequently necessary to go back
  564
  considerably beyond that period. In addition to that, in dealing with an estate for 60 years, it almost always happened that there was some slight defect in the title, some legal estate outstanding, some receipt not signed by the right party, or some missing link which in practice would not affect a title in the least degree, but which would cause it to be rejected by the Registrar. In fact, it had frequently happened that when a person sought to avail himself of the benefit of the Act, he had been confronted by obstacles the existence of which he had not the remotest idea. The next difficulty was the absolute identification of boundaries. In practice, it was usual to obtain from some old person who was acquainted with the property a declaration that the property proposed to be sold corresponded generally with the description of it in the deeds, and to the conveyance a map was appended which for all practical purposes sufficiently identified the property. But under the Act for the Registration of Titles an owner was bound to trace mathematically and accurately every hedge, every ditch, every wall, every fence which bounded his property, and, in order to do this, he was required to give notice to all adjoining owners and occupiers. Such provisions had militated most grievously against the operation of the Act, because people would not incur the risk of raising all these questions. Again, the Act required that when a property was once registered all subsequent dealings and transactions with regard to it should be inserted on the register, the result being that when estates were divided into small lots the expense of transfer was greater than if they were conveyed in the ordinary way. Under all the circumstances, it could hardly be a matter of surprise that the Act had been a failure. In his opinion, however, a simple remedy might be adopted, which would, to a considerable extent, supply the deficiencies of the Act of 1862, and remove the obstacles now placed in the way of registering titles. He would suggest that the Registrars should be authorized to deal with titles as titles were dealt with in practice, or, in other words, to grant a qualified certificate to the effect that the owner had made out a good title for 40 years or less, or a title subject to certain contingencies stated in the certificate. Under such a

  565
  qualified title there could be no practical difficulty in selling the property. He hoped he had said enough to show the necessity for getting rid of existing difficulties in the way of the transfer of land. He had received a letter from a connection in Victoria, who said that the plan he proposed was almost identically the same as that which had been in operation in the colony since 1862, and which was regarded as a very great boon; indeed, auctioneers would not undertake the sale of land unless the vendor had one of the certificates, or would make it a condition of sale that he should obtain one. He thought that if a similar plan were adopted in this country, a similar success would result. Without entering upon other and larger questions, which would have to be discussed at a future time, he would remark that there was always in the market a sufficient quantity of land for intending purchasers. There were usually from 100,000 to 200,000 acres of land to be disposed of in lots to suit all classes of purchasers; but the tendency of small holders was rather to sell than to acquire, because money could be more profitably invested in trade than in land. Therefore, it need not be anticipated that any change in the law would make the ownership of land more popular. Nevertheless, it was true that great impediments were thrown in the way of the acquisition of land, particularly in small quantities, by the enormous expense, the difficulty, and the trouble that attended a transfer, and it was this aspect of the question only that he desired to raise. Although it might be thought otherwise, he believed that the members of the legal profession would not allow any personal considerations to stand in the way of any scheme which would have the effect of simplifying the title to, and the transfer of land, but they would promptly second any efforts made with that object; and he should like to have the assurance that some such plan as he had proposed would receive the support of the Government, if the subject were not dealt with by the Government themselves.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that
  566
  further facilities should be afforded for the transfer of land,"—(Mr. Gregory,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WREN HOSKYNS* said, he heartily wished that he could share in the hope of any practical improvement of the kind they really needed in the transfer of land, as likely to arise from the very modest suggestions of his hon. and learned Friend on the opposite benches. They had Commission after Commission, and Report after Report, but still nothing was done. Here was another Report, to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred, the last of four, itself seven and twenty pages in length, with nine pages more, a third of the original, made up of dissentient statements, signed by six out of the nine Commissioners! a pleasing prospect of the efficacy of those labours upon which their hopes of any improvement hung, in a matter upon which they now were compelled to take rank behind every other civilized nation of Europe—of the world. This was shown by the "Land Tenure Returns," presented to the House of Commons the Session before last, which displayed the fact that in every nation of Europe but this land was now bought and sold with the utmost promptitude, cheapness, and simplicity; by the aid of a Government register, of the most absolute authority and compendious arrangement, and a map of ample scale and mathematical accuracy, upon which the boundaries were defined with minutest delineation. With those aids the sale and purchase of land were completed in the same time and with the same facility and certainty, as no country in the world exemplified better than our own, in every transaction connected with the purchase of stock, whatever its subject matter, ships, shares, cargoes, or Consols. His hon. and learned Friend's description of a sale of land with which he had treated the House reminded him of that given, not quite so seriously, by a still higher authority amongst conveyancers, Mr. Joshua Williams—
  "Consider for a moment what it is that a man does when he simply signs a contract to sell a piece of land. By the law as it now stands he firmly binds himself, by implication, to do at his own expense the following things:—To make out at his own expense and deliver to the purchaser an abstract of all the title deeds, wills, and other documents affecting the premises for the last 60

  567
  years. It will not do for him to Bay to the purchaser—'Here are the deeds; take them and look at them yourself: or, if you please, let your lawyer look over them.' No, the purchaser is entitled to an abstract. Having got his abstract, he is entitled to have that abstract verified by the production, at the vendor's expense, of every one of the title deeds. It frequently happens that many deeds are not in the custody of the vendor. No matter; he must find out where they are, and give the purchaser an opportunity of inspecting them He must then verify, at his own expense, every event upon which the title has turned, the death of every tenant for life or life annuitant, the pedigree of every heir-at-law, and the names and members of every class of persons, such as children, on whom the property may have been settled.…. The effect not unfrequently is to bring an honest vendor not fortunate enough to have had good legal advice into a very serious strait; and cases have occurred where purchasers have waived their strict rights on condition of getting the property for nothing."
  Now, would it be seriously credited by the inhabitants of any other civilized country that such a state of things could really be in existence here! in a country commercially the most practical in Europe? His hon. and learned Friend had repeated the statement made by Lord Derby at Liverpool, that there was "plenty of land for sale in the newspapers." Of course, there was. There was plenty of everything for the rich; and plenty of land for those who could afford a costly lawyer's bill, and a kind of land-suit, not to say law-suit, of unlimited duration. But Lord Derby, and following him his hon. and learned Friend, had overlooked, in making that statement, the very essence of the question. It had never been denied that land was transferable enough, on a large scale, to wealthy purchasers, where the proof of "title," however protracted, took but 2 or 3 per cent, say a year's rent, from the cost price. But it was to the small purchaser—the man who wanted a few acres to build a house upon, or otherwise—that this foolish cost of "title," increasing inversely with the acreage—for one acre was as old as a thousand, when once the question of ancient "title" was admitted—forbad the purchase, by a tax rising to 6, to 10, to 20, to 26 per cent! as shown in the tables of Mr. Sweet, the conveyancer, printed in one of those very Reports alluded to. It was idle to say to the small capitalist—"There was land enough for sale," when he knew that to him the investment would be eaten up by the brokerage. Compare that with a purchase in the Three per Cents, whose
  568
  "beautiful simplicity" often brought to mind Adam Smith's profound aphorism that "the acquisition of wealth might make a nation rich; but it was the distribution of wealth that made a nation prosperous and happy." Their commercial interchange was perfect. The whole of the Funds mainly consisted of small sums under £2,000, and such was their freedom and elasticity of transfer that an amount equal to the whole of the National Debt changed hands, they were told on the best authority, in four years. How was it, he would ask the House, that in the face of such facilities as those, in the same country the practical smoothness and ease of whose mercantile action commanded the admiration of the world, they could still endure a barbarous stagnation in their land dealings, which had scared away the small capitalist, the very bulk of their savings bank, and even funded proprietors from the land market by a costly system of prohibitory charges and dilatory completion. It was made a subject of reproach against large proprietors that land was constantly aggregating in large and larger masses. The fault was not theirs. How could it be otherwise under our preposterous system of inverse cost of transfer? Try the same experiment on the funds; intercept the exchange of small investments in the the Three per Cents by a process exactly analogous to that which affected the acreage of land in detail in this country, and how many small fundholders—the very class that constituted the bulk of investors—would remain in a dozen—how many in hundred—years? And that system has been going on in land for more than twice that period. The sellers had all sold—for sellers must sell—but the buyers had not bought, for buyers were not obliged to buy if the bargain looked untempting. And they knew what became of that stream which was always running out, but nothing running in. Could any one wonder that under such a system the land-proprietary of this kingdom should have diminished? And what had been the cause of that costly and dilatory transfer, stifling all the smaller purchases, say from £100 to £1,000? The answer was briefly but plainly indicated in the words of the Report under discussion—
  "It is impossible," write the Commissioners, "to discuss any system for the more ready transfer of land without feeling that many impediments

  569
  which exist are owing to rules of law which permit landowners to make settlements of land for long periods, and do not provide any certain power to order the conversion of that land into money, however expedient such a course may be."
  It was in vain for his hon. and learned Friend to shrink from this question of lengthy entail and settlement. The language of the Commissioners' Report compelled their attention to that point as a cause of causes. Until the living generation had acquired a real interest in the land, and were freed from the double grasp of "the dead hand, and the unborn hand," as it had been truly called, he feared remedies such as those now proposed by him would fail. Too great a sub-division of the land was by no means desirable; it was detrimental to the system of agriculture most prevalent in this country. But the distribution of landed wealth, in the sense understood by political economy, should be as free as that of every other form of property, if possible, even more so, in so far as its possession was of all others the most conducive to a real and extended patriotism, "a stake in the country," among those classes in the State whose divorce from it lay at the root of the pauperism, the drunkenness and dissolute habits which sadly contrasted in this country with the habits of the corresponding class in other States, who were enabled to share in the cares and interests of proprietorship; as in Belgium, for instance, where the money here spent in drink was saved for the independent acquirement of land. He should be glad to see such a change as that, if not assisted, at least not obstructed by the operation of our law of Land Transfer. The demand was in fact no longer that land should be "as transferable as the Three per Cents," but as it was now in every other country of Europe.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, that a considerable portion of his best days were spent in endeavouring to introduce into the Australian colonies a system of transferring land by means of the registration of title, which had effected there all the results so much desired to be brought about in this country. The success of that Act had, indeed, exceeded his own most sanguine hopes, as well as the expectations of those who had supported him. The great object in Australia was to establish a class of yeoman proprietors of land. The English system of con-
  570
  veyancing, however, caused great delay and expense, and was found to be an obstacle to attaining that end, and likewise hindered the progress of a new country. The principle of his measure was taken from the Shipping Law. There was no difficulty in transferring the largest interest in shipping: any merchant's clerk or shipbroker could do it with little delay and at small expense. The adoption of the new system in Australia had reduced the cost of the transfer of land literally from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from weeks to hours. It had, at the same time, also substituted absolute and perfect safety in the place of insecurity, while it had enhanced the value of all the land in the country. One colony after another, seing the great advantages derived from the system, had adopted it, and in all cases with the same satisfactory results. The failure in this country was said to be due to the old and complicated titles; but some of the Australian colonies were of 60 years' standing and upwards, and the transfer of landed property from hand to hand was so much more rapid there than here, that a title in Australia would accumulate in 10 years a greater amount of documentary evidence than a title of a century old in this country. In Ireland, under the Record of Titles Act and the Encumbered Estates Act, the Estates Court could, after advertisement, and in the absence of any adverse claim, give an indefeasible title, and the official mechanism and statutory forms for conducting subsequent dealings had been adopted from his (Mr. Torrens's) Australian Act; and yet in Ireland, as well as in England, this experiment had failed. Why had a system which had been so successful in Australia that it had been adopted in one colony after another, failed in England and Ireland? It could not be because of entails and extensive settlements, because under the system of registration of titles in Australia there had been sufficient experience of limited ownerships and equitable interests in land, and yet the transfer of land had been effected without any confusion, danger, delay, or loss. The first and main cause of the failure of Lord Westbury's Act was the attempt to blend together two systems of conveyancing which were antagonistic and inconsistent with each other—namely, the system of conveyancing by deeds and by registration of

  571
  title. Under Lord Westbury's Act the parties might either use one of the statutory forms in the Act, or any deed or instrument. Every kind of document was allowed to be registered, and the entire principle of the registration of title was destroyed. When a deed was registered it had to be interpreted. The title to land in this country was now only one long retrospect, and all that historical research into the dealings of a man's ancestors could only be conducted by highly-paid lawyers at a great sacrifice of time and labour. The Act which was in force in Australia, declared that no deed or instrument should operate to charge or transfer land in any manner; but that as soon as the transfer, or mortgage, or charge, or other dealing had been entered by the proper officer on the record of title the land should become transferred or charged, or dealt with accordingly; while by Lord Westbury's Act the transfer might be effected by a deed that vitiated the whole process. The real advantage of the registration of title and its real essence was this—That the retrospective character of title to land was cut off—that one could not go behind the entry on the record, for each transaction was indefeasible in itself; so that when A transferred his land to B, the title of A was not to be examined, and the title of B was, as it were, direct from the Crown. When, therefore, mortgages and encumbrances were discharged from the record they ceased to be matters of record, and became defunct transactions, into which it was unnecessary for the parties examining the title to inquire. In this indefeasibility consisted the whole advantage of the registration of title. In Lord Westbury's Act, on the other hand, he found defects of mechanism which were sufficient to make shipwreck of the measure. It was wonderful that this country should so long submit to so great an anomaly as two sets of titles—the one perfect, the other a good holding title of a bonâ fide owner, who could not be ousted from possession, but who was not yet able to enforce a contract for sale. In Australia what was required was a good holding title. If the examiners of title found an owner in possession, and with evidence of title that would secure him from ejectment, he received an indefeasible title, although there might pre-
  572
  viously have been blots upon it. He believed that by adopting that system registration of title might with perfect security and ease be effected, with the same advantages that it had secured to the inhabitants of the colonies. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gregory) who introduced the subject, that it would be possible to abate the requirements of definite descriptions of the boundaries of property. If that were left open, the whole question would be left open. In other countries no difficulty was found in defining boundaries, and a system of maps, founded upon the Ordnance Survey, might be made so effective as to prevent many disputes about boundaries. In that way the transfer of land might be rendered as rapid, cheap, and economical as the system by which property in shipping was now transferred in this country.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must express his thanks to the hon. and learned proposer of the Motion and to the two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House upon it; for keeping them reminded of the necessity of some alteration in the law of the transfer of land. Beyond that agreement between the three hon. Gentlemen, he believed he might say they agreed also in another proposition, and that was that the Act of Lord Westbury, which had been introduced for this purpose, had, unfortunately, proved a failure. But there, he believed, their agreement ceased. His hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) proposed to introduce what he might call a modification of it; but the modification was remarkable in this way—that the part of Hamlet was left out of the play, because the system intended by that Bill was a system of registration, and the system proposed to be introduced by the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex was not a system of registration at all, but of certificates of the goodness of title wholly irrespective of registration. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. R. Torrens) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Wren Hoskyns) were agreed to this extent—that whatever could by any possibility be done to facilitate the transfer of land which could be effectual must be a system of compulsory registration. He mentioned this not to ridicule the proposition of his

  573
  hon. and learned Friend, but to show how difficult the subject was, and how impossible to get men who had devoted time, learning, and research towards the elucidation of the subject to agree in a remedy that was necessary to cure the evil they all agreed in lamenting. It was not to be expected that with the Report of the last Commission before them, the Government could be immediately in a position to decide on the course to be adopted. It had already been stated by the hon. Member for Hereford—and he need not repeat the lamentable statement—that the Commission appointed to investigate the subject gave in almost as many Reports as there were Commissioners. They seemed to have agreed simply in disagreeing and dissenting from one another; and it was quite impossible to say that such a series of Reports could afford by itself a sufficient basis for the action of Government. But he thought he might say that the Government were fully convinced of the necessity of some effectual reform in the mode now adopted in the transfer of land, which laymen and lawyers alike asserted to be one of the most complicated, expensive, and absurd systems ever adopted or allowed to continue in a civilized country. In behalf of the Government, he thought he was entitled to say that not only would the matter have their fullest consideration, with a view to the amendment of the law, but it had already received a very large amount of consideration, on the part especially of the Lord Chancellor, the highest legal Member of the Government, and he thought he might tell the House that matters had proceeded so far that a Bill had been actually prepared with a view to carry out the contemplated mode of reform; but from the pressure of other business it was not probable it would be in the power of the Government to bring forward the contemplated measure during this Session. That expectation, however, he hoped might be disappointed. The numerous important measures Government were compelled to proceed with might so rapidly, so easily, and so satisfactorily be disposed of, that before the end of the Session there might be time to introduce the measure; and if that fortunate event should happen, the Members of the Government would only be too happy to avail themselves of the opportunity. Of course,
  574
  in these circumstances, it would be useless for him to occupy the time of the House in prolonging the present discussion, beyond stating that the measure in contemplation of the Lord Chancellor, whenever brought in, would be not a small measure, as had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex, but a large, comprehensive, and, he hoped, effectual measure for the object proposed. He hoped, however, his hon. and learned Friend would not suppose he was censuring his smaller measure, for, on the contrary, he thought the House owed him many thanks for taking the step he had. Under these circumstances, his hon. and learned Friend would see that it was not desirable to pledge the House to an abstract Resolution of this kind, which really and truly bound them to nothing, but still might prove a source of embarrassment when they came to deal with actual measures propounded in the form of Bills. Considering that his hon. and learned Friend had accomplished one of his objects by keeping the subject alive and before the country, and having had this promise on the part of the Government, he hoped he would be satisfied to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was glad to hear the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and felt satisfied that when he took a matter up, he would not leave it till something effective had been done. He desired to point out to the House what seemed to him to be the only sound principle upon which this question could ever be settled. The system of registration was perfectly effectual as carried out in all matters relating to personal property. If he went to the Bank of England for a transfer of stock, the stock was transferred and no questions were asked as to the trusts on which he might hold it. The only questions put were—"Are you the owner of the stock, and do you want the transfer?" Why should the owners of land in this country not be able to get it transferred as the owner of personal estate could get that transferred? Why, there was evidence to be produced in favour of the adoption of that course in a passage from the Report of the Commission which sat in 1857, to the effect that if there had been a register of land as there was of ships, stock, and railway shares,

  575
  it would be difficult to point out any distinction between them, so far as concerned the mode in which they could be effectually transferred and sold. The same thing was practically repeated in 1870, and yet nothing was done except the passing of an Act of Parliament, which was reported to be an utter failure. Such a state of matters was not creditable to Parliament. On the Continent no great difficulty was found in the registration of titles and deeds. Though the settlements of land might continue to be made as at present, there might be a register of title; and the transfer of title would be perfectly easy. That was a question not merely affecting the rich man, but it affected also poor people desirous of obtaining small pieces of land. It was said to be absurd for poor people to have small pieces of land. There ought not, however, to be any legal hindrance to their acquisition of them; and if there were any economical objection to the purchase of small pieces, the people might be left to find that out for themselves. He hoped that the present discussion would have the effect of spurring on the Government to attend to this matter with more energy than heretofore. The House spent a great deal of time on personal and party questions, and allowed great social questions to go by. He hoped before another year passed a good and broad system of registration would be introduced, and not merely such a measure as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gregory), for that was not large enough. What he desired was a larger, and, if he might say so, a more revolutionary measure.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that greater facilities for the transfer of land should be provided; but it was unnecessary that the whole system of land transfer should be revolutionized in order to effect it. He could not concur with the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. W. Fowler) in condemning Lord Westbury's Land Transfer Act, which he thought one of the most useful measures that had been passed during the last 16 years, and one that would work satisfactorily if it were amended so as to remove the difficulties which impeded its usefulness.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—THE WOODEN IRON-CLADS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Sir, I rise, according to Notice, to call attention to the condition of the wooden iron-clads of the Navy. I trust that before I proceed some representative of the Admiralty Department may present himself, as I should be sorry to make the remarks which I shall feel it my duty to make in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, and yet after the reply the right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to make, in reply to my Question of yesterday, I cannot allow the present opportunity to pass without either affording him the opportunity of allaying the alarm which his reply tended to create, or of myself giving such information as I possess on the subject. Any information which I can give the House must, as being without official authority, be necessarily imperfect. I am glad, however, to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, and shall proceed with my statement. I took the liberty yesterday of asking the right hon. Gentleman, Whether one of these iron-clads, the Prince Consort, on her recent examination, had shown serious symptoms of decay; and whether there was any apprehension that the Ocean, Royal Oak, Caledonia, Royal Alfred, and Zealous might also be equally defective? To this Question the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed me no reply, and this House not much information. He favoured us with an epithet and an enigma. With regard to the epithet I will make this remark—the right hon. Gentleman said the Question was characteristic of the Questioner. That may be taken in two different ways. He may have meant that it was characteristic of me as one of the few naval officers now in this House—only seven hon. Members now, I think—who have had any relation to the Navy. In that case, I can only tell him that I believe it to be the duty of each one of us, on all subjects connected with that profession, to make the closest inquiries as to the mode in which it is administered; and, for my part, I shall not be deterred from doing that which I believe is expected of us, not only by our constituents, but by this House. The right hon. Gentleman may, however, mean that the Question is an inconvenient one

  577
  to answer. Well, to that I can only reply, that the only Question I remember to have asked of an inconvenient character was one concerning the Megæra, and I leave the House to judge whether on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman or I seemed the better informed. I now desire again to put the Question which I had the honour of addressing to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, in order to give him an opportunity of replying to it more fully, and of setting at rest the anxieties that the right hon. Gentleman's speculative opinions might have evoked. I do not intend to make any inquiry with respect to the Lord Warden. She is a ship of a recent date, and I believe is a thoroughly good ship, but I am especially anxious to learn the right hon. Gentleman's opinion of the six ships to which I alluded in my Question of yesterday. These six ships were completed under Lord Palmerston's Government when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government was Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were wooden line-of-battle ships, enlarged, altered, and iron-plated, and were not expected to be long-lived. They were confessedly stopgaps, though extremely useful for the purpose for which they were built. They have done their work well, but it is time they were replaced. My Question has reference to the way in which they are to be replaced. For it is notorious that Her Majesty's Government have stopped all useful shipbuilding, and have done nothing to replace these useful but decaying ships. I will shortly state my opinion of these ships which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord failed to give yesterday, and leave him to correct my imperfect statement, if he can do so. These ships have been constantly in commission for 10 years, and at present four are in commission and two at home. Of the two in reserve at home the Royal Oak has, I believe, had a thorough repair, and may be considered fit for service, if required. The Prince Consort is also at home and under survey. I am credibly informed that her condition is most unsatisfactory. The bolts which fasten on her armour-plates were originally 2¼ inches thick; they pass through the armour-plates and the oak of which the ship is built. If iron bolts pass through teak, the iron bolt lasts for ever; but in these ships
  578
  the plates are bolted through to oak, and the gallic acid has reduced them till they are quite untrustworthy. The timbers and planking I am also credibly informed are very rotten and decayed; and I am told that not less than £80,000 is required to make the Prince Consort fit for service. I shall object to any such expenditure. Ships should have been laid down long ago to replace ships of such a temporary character, and it will be monstrous to incur such an expenditure on a ship so imperfect as the Prince Consort. As to the Caledonia I know little of her. She has been and is close to Malta Dockyard, and has, I believe, received so extensive a repair as to leave no doubt that she is fit for her present service. I hope she will prove a useful ship as long as she lasts, though I fear that will not be long. Of the Royal Alfred I have no information. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some opinion, not speculative. If the right hon. Gentleman says she is a good and safe ship, I will take his word for it, but we want facts and not speculative opinions. If not a good ship she should at once be replaced by another. The next ship that I shall ask about is the Zealous. I was informed by a friend of mine that she had been in dock at San Francisco, and that her repair has been so thorough as to leave no doubt that she is available for any service that may be required; but it would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had assured the House of her soundness, rather than have left them to find it out from the information of a private Member. The one ship whose condition I have good reason to doubt is the Ocean. The Ocean has been six years in commission, and grave doubts have been reported to the Admiralty of her condition. She is of too great draught to come through the Suez Canal, and is at present, I believe, on her way home round the Cape of Good Hope. Her timbers have shown symptoms of unsoundness, and the condition of her contemporary, the Prince Consort, leaves grave doubts whether she will ever again be a useful ship; but I do not anticipate in the summer cruise she is now making any danger to those on board her. She has been surveyed by accomplished officers in the East, and they would not have imperilled the lives of her crew had any suspicion been en-

  579
  tertained of her unseaworthiness. I therefore make no charge against the right hon. Gentleman, excepting as regards the fact that he has made no provision to replace these wooden iron-clads; but this I will say, that the right hon. Gentleman's reply—if it can be called a reply—to me yesterday was unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. Does he remember that 2,400 persons are embarked in these four ships, and that instead of at once assuring the House of the seaworthiness of these ships, which had been so gravely doubted in consequence of the survey of the Prince Consort, he contents himself with declining to express any "speculative opinion" as to their safety, and leads this House to believe that he is ignorant of their condition? I trust that when the Navy Estimates are laid on the Table, we shall find they are to be replaced by other ships of a better and more enduring character.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not see why the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) should complain of a Question of his being called characteristic. The hon. and gallant Baronet seemed to think that some personal attack was intended, but nothing of the kind was meant. He (Mr. Goschen), however, saw a tendency on the part of the hon. and gallant Baronet, such as he had often observed before, to make general and painful inquiries, detrimental to the character of ships whose reputation was dear to the Admiralty. The ships to which the hon. and gallant Baronet referred were not built under the present Administration, who were not, therefore, specially responsible for them; but they were built when the Admiralty was presided over by a noble Duke, who spent more millions of money in building ships than any other First Lord, and now said that the ships were not capable of swimming. He felt that there was no party attack whatsoever in the Question which had been put by the hon. and gallant Baronet; but when sweeping Questions were asked, calculated to create alarm in the mind of the public, not only the character of the ships themselves, but the apprehension which might be caused to those who had relatives on board them, must not be lost sight of. He could assure the hon. and gallant Baronet that there was nothing Eke temper in the
  580
  answer which he had given him. The reputation of our ships was almost as delicate as that of a woman, and the mode in which the Question was put might, it appeared, create unnecessary alarm, which, in his opinion, it was not wise to create. The hon. and gallant Baronet had alluded to the Megæra, and considering that he had sent that vessel to Ascension, after the report which he had received with respect to the thinness of her water-plates, he did not think the hon. and gallant Baronet was precisely the person who would have raised any Question with reference to her in that House. The hon. and gallant Baronet must, no doubt, have felt, as he (Mr. Goschen) felt, with regard to the Megæra, and he should not have alluded to her had not the question about her been raised. The hon. and gallant Baronet took a great interest in the Navy, and the time might possibly come when he might be more responsible for that service than he was at present. When that time arrived, he should endeavour to assist the hon. and gallant Baronet in supporting the reputation of our ships, and, instead of making sweeping assertions with respect to them, would go to him privately and ask him whether he had heard that anything was wrong with any one of them, instead of making speculative inquiries, calculated to excite alarm in numerous families throughout the country. He would now proceed to answer in detail some of the points to which the hon. and gallant Baronet had called his attention. The Question which had been put to him seemed to lead to the impression that all the ships which he had mentioned were labouring under one and the same kind of defect. These ships were the Ocean, the Prince Consort, the Royal Oak, the Royal Alfred, the Zealous, and the Caledonia. Now, the Ocean was at present on her way home. There were certain defects in her, it was true; but they had nothing to do, so far as he was aware, with the decay of her timbers. The defect in her was, that the metal sheathing at the bottom had given way in a great many places, and it was considered that, as she drew too much water to be docked in China, and as it was necessary that she should be docked, in order to replace the sheathing, it was desirable she should come home for repairs. The defect, however, was in no way connected with her tim-

  581
  bers, or her structural strength. A further defect had also been detected since, and that was that the caulking of the ship seemed to be defective in several respects. The ship, however, had been surveyed by the officers at the direction of the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief at the station, and it was their opinion that she might, with all safety, return home. He trusted, therefore, that the Question which had been put to him, as well as the answer, would cause no anxiety, because, as the hon. and gallant Baronet had said, the character of the officers of the ship was such that they would not say she could safely come back unless she was in a condition to do so. It would, at the same time, be to give merely a speculative opinion to pronounce what her actual condition was until she was docked. As to the Royal Alfred, he knew nothing to lead him to consider her as being anything but an effective ship. The time had come when she was to be replaced in the course of the next financial year, and when she arrived in dock an opinion could be passed upon her. But now that she was in North American waters it would be merely a speculative opinion to say how she stood until she was stripped and examined. All he could say was that he had heard nothing which induced him to fear with respect to the Royal Alfred. She was a newer ship than the Prince Consort, or the Caledonia. He came, in the next place to the Zealous. In her case there was an indication of rot in some of the timbers in 1869. The officers of the ship, however, reported that it was only to a slight extent, and that they would keep an eye on its progress. Since then nothing further had been heard with regard to the increase of the decay. The Zealous would remain at her station till the end of the year, and he had no doubt, if her services were required, that she would be perfectly available for any demand which might be made upon her in the course of the year. She was at present on the Pacific station, and a ship would soon be sent out to relieve her, and when towards the end of the year she was relieved, she would be ordered home. The Prince Consort, as he had informed the hon. and gallant Baronet on the previous evening, was still under survey, and no report as to her exact condition had been received. Mr. Barnaby had seen her
  582
  himself, and had told him some facts connected with her. There was no doubt that the inside planking of the ship, and the timbers to a certain extent, were in a state of decay, and that to repair her would be a most expensive process. But as to the question of her bolts, to which the hon. and gallant Baronet had alluded, he was evidently in the same position in which he had been on several former occasions—that was to say, he had received the reports of the local officers before they had reached the Admiralty. He, at all events, had received no such reports as those which had been referred to with regard to her bolts. There was also another remarkable circumstance connected with the repairs of the Prince Consort. He had consulted Mr. Barnaby that very day as to the amount which would be necessary for her repairs, and had heard it stated that it would be £80,000. He asked him how he had come to that conclusion, inasmuch as the ship had not yet been surveyed. The hon. and gallant Baronet, too, gave that precise sum, and he should like to know how he got the figure. It did not come from the Devonport officers. They had made no suggestion on the subject, or, if they had, they had not communicated it to the Admiralty. Mr. Barnaby, having been asked how he arrived at the sum of £80,000, said that in framing the estimate for the next year they had been pressed as to how much was likely to be spent on each of those ships, and that they thought £80,000 was about the right sum. He (Mr. Goschen) would repeat that he should very much like to know how the hon. and gallant Baronet came by that information. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) who sat next to him could inform the House. [Mr. CORRY: I do not know.] It was strange that the hon. and gallant Baronet should have hit upon the precise figure that had with difficulty been extracted from Mr. Barnaby; but it was quite clear, at all events, from the fact that the hon. and gallant Baronet knew the figure, that he was likely to have from him a very searching criticism, and that he was very well up in his facts. The hon. and gallant Baronet was anxious to receive information from him, while he himself was evidently running over with infor-

  583
  mation, and, no doubt, officers in the exercise of their duty had been furnishing him with information. But, be that as it might, the hon. and gallant Baronet was right in supposing that it would cost a very large sum to repair the Prince Consort, and it was a question which must, under the circumstances, be carefully considered whether she was worth repairing or not. Upon that point he must be allowed not to express any opinion until the vessel had been accurately surveyed, and to be allowed not to say what should be done before he had proper information on the subject. All he would say was, that if it was necessary to utilize those ships, he hoped that the Prince Consort was not in such a state as not to be able to do excellent service if required. Notwithstanding the doubt which had been thrown upon so many of our ships, still, as compared with the ships of other nations, they were in such a condition that they could be made very available. He spoke not to make a mere party answer, but because he was conscientiously jealous lest anything said should tend to weaken the idea of the public in the power of the British Navy. It should be borne in mind that wooden ships cased in iron were not so long-lived as the iron-clads, and the advantage the country derived from that circumstance was enormous, because with us the exception was to have wooden ships cased with iron, whereas with Continental nations they were the rule. In the French Navy, for instance, as regarded iron-clads, there were only five real iron ships, the whole of the rest being wooden ships cased in iron. Thus far, therefore, we were in an infinitely better position than our neighbours. The last of the vessels to which the hon. and gallant Baronet alluded was, he believed, the Caledonia. She was at present in the Mediterranean, performing an interesting service connected with some antiquities for the British Museum. She had just been engaged in bringing marbles from Smyrna. Of all our wooden ships she was the one about which, after the Prince Consort, there was the most anxiety. The timbers of the Caledonia were not in a satisfactory condition. She was seaworthy, and able to do service at the present time, if required; but unless large sums were spent in their repair, the Caledonia and the Prince Consort were
  584
  not likely to render much service for the future. The hon. and gallant Baronet might twit him about the Megæra, and knew he was likely to feel it; but though he did not want to suppress the facts, and when asked point blank what the defects of Her Majesty's ships were, he would state the facts, he did not approve of exposing to the public gaze every defect in the condition of Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he had not understood the epithet that had been applied to the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) in a complimentary sense, such as he was willing to accept, for he must say that he took it to be what was called a "snub," and to be hardly consistent with the courtesy which they had the right to expect from Ministers of the Crown. He would not say a word as to the condition of any of the ships which had been mentioned except the Ocean; but he must say that for the sake of economy, the present Board of Admiralty had adopted a practice which he did not consider consistent with prudence. Instead of re-calling ships to England to be properly surveyed, after being paid off, and prepared for a new commission on the expiration of their term of service, the Admiralty sent out a new complement, new sails, and other perishable stores, and re-commissioned the vessels on foreign stations. The Ocean, on the China station, was treated in this way, and a line-of-battle ship fitted out for the conveyance of her new ship's company; but shortly afterwards it became necessary to order her home for repairs, so that instead of economy there was a great loss. The Ocean was commissioned in June, 1866. He was not then at the Admiralty, but soon after his appointment, in 1867, there occurred a difficulty with Spain, which had a powerful armour-clad vessel in China, and he took the responsibility of sending the Ocean from the Mediterranean to reinforce the China Squadron. She made a successful voyage out, in spite of bad weather; but if he had remained at the Admiralty he should have thought 1870, or at the outside the beginning of 1871, the longest period the Ocean should have been allowed to remain without what was called before the Megæra Commission an exhaustive survey. The life of a boiler was hardly

  585
  long enough to last out two commissions; and another objection to the new system was that, whereas in the case of war, after a ship had been three or four years upon a station she could still render service upon an emergency, now after seven or eight years' service a war would find her with her boilers ready to burst, and almost on her last legs for want of repairs. There was also an objection to the new system on moral grounds, for by ordering home the ship's company and leaving their ship behind them, you weakened the esprit de corps of the Navy. Officers and crews took pride in their ships, and liked to bring them home in the best possible order, to be inspected by the admiral, and reported to headquarters as being in a satisfactory condition; but now a captain was apt to think, "What is the use of getting my ship into first-rate order, when another captain will come out and take the credit of it?" The new system was supported by the late Controller, but he had good reason for believing that Sir Spencer Robinson had since changed his mind upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, after being what he called twitted with respect to the Megæra, retorted by saying that his hon. and gallant Friend had himself sent her on a voyage. Now, there was a great difference between sending such a ship to Ascension and sending her round the Cape to Australia; and the right hon. Gentleman forgot this material fact—that when his hon. and gallant Friend ordered the Megæra to Ascension, she had not run for the two years during which Mr. Reed had reported she was fit for sea. [Mr. GOSCHEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not then cognizant of Mr. Reed's Report.] He believed the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken on this point; but, even assuming that he had no knowledge of the Report, there was a great and an obvious difference—as the right hon. Gentleman would know when he had been longer at the Admiralty—between sending a ship to Ascension in 1868 and sending her to Australia three years afterwards, the ship, in the meantime, not having undergone any extensive repairs.
  MR. SAMUDAthought the public should understand that these iron-cased wooden vessels, which were adapted in
  586
  1860, when the necessities of the country were great, and its power of production was small, had really done good service, and had lasted quite as long as was expected. It was originally said that if they lasted for only six or seven years that was as much as could be expected, and, therefore, the country had obtained full value for its money, while, if they were considered as experiments, no one could deny that they had not been successful in a very great degree. Considering, therefore, that they had long outlasted the period originally contemplated, it could be no great matter of surprise if a large sum of money were required to be spent upon them, to perpetuate, as it were, their existence.
  Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 25.]
(Mr. John Talbot, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Cowper.)
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 25.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to extend the provisions of a very useful measure, by enabling the prison authorities to send youthful criminals to such institutions, in cases in which they possessed no power to do so at present. This Bill was rendered more than ever necessary in consequence of the power given to school boards to establish, build, and maintain certified industrial schools. It was therefore only reasonable that the prison authorities in counties and boroughs should have the same power as that given to the school boards under the Education Act. The Prevention of Crime Act also contained a clause, giving power to send the children of women twice convicted, and having no other parent or proper guardian, to industrial schools, providing they were under 14; and to show the great good that had resulted from the establishment of such institutions, he would quote from the last Report by the Inspectors of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, wherein it was stated that—
  "All the boys discharged from Cardiff, Surrey, Aberdeen, and Ayr Industrial Schools, and all of

  587
  the girls discharged from Newtonstewart and Kilmarnock Industrial Schools in 1867–8–9, were doing well to the end of 1870."
  That was by itself a very encouraging result. Of course there were schools in which the results were less satisfactory; but, on the whole, these schools were doing a most useful work, and he hoped the House would give the additional powers with respect to them sought by the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Talbot.)
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had no objection to the Bill, thinking it quite right that the power of erecting these schools should be extended to places where there were no school boards. It would also tend to remedy the present defect of these schools, that they depended too much on Imperial and too little on local contributions. These institutions were working well, and with the Habitual Criminals Act at the other end of the scale, was having a striking and almost unexpected effect in diminishing the number of inveterate criminals, the most experienced Judges having remarked at the recent assizes, that they had never known so few persons tried for repeated offences. It was satisfactory to find, amid some darker features of the times, that efforts for improving the character of the people and diminishing crime were having a good effect.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday next.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 28.]
(Mr. Spencer Walpole, Mr. Russell Gurney, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Rathbone.)
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 28.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to supply a want which had been long felt—namely, that of a public prosecutor. The great advantage of having a public prosecutor, instead of leaving the prosecution of crime in the hands of private individuals, was so often insisted upon by the highest authorities in the land,
  588
  that the wonder was that the want of such a public officer had so long remained a reproach to our law, and a serious obstacle to the administration of justice. In that respect our criminal justice was very defective. There had hitherto been so much irregularity, and not unfrequently so much negligence and collusion, in connection with the prosecution of crime that it might be said the law had been left to take its chance. When they considered the inconvenience, the trouble, and the expense which were thrown upon private parties, by relegating to them the duty that belonged to the State, nobody could be surprised when they found that prosecutions were not carried on, even in cases where the offender was known; and that in many cases also, where they were carried on, convictions did not follow, in consequence of the imperfect manner in which the cases were got up. According to the judicial statistics, between 50,000 and 60,000 indictable offences were annually reported by the police as having been committed. Of that number not more than 26,000 were brought before justices. Of the criminals apprehended, certainly about one-fourth were not committed for trial; and of those who were committed for trial, one-fourth more escaped for want of evidence, or from some neglect or defect in conducting the prosecution in a proper manner. The general result was, that out of those 50,000 or 60,000 indictable offences, only 13,000 criminals were convicted last year. And so it may be said that impunity for crime was almost the rule, and punishment the exception. With these facts before them, he could not doubt that the House would resolve to try to meet the evil, provided a measure could be adopted or could be suggested which would be suitable and well adapted for the purpose. He knew there was a difficulty in the case; but he would not shirk that difficulty. He had brought in the Bill with the full concurrence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), and other high authorities, whose names were on the back of the Bill, and he believed that the machinery it provided was efficient; but, at the same time, he might say that the provisions and machinery of the Bill would require close investigation in order to be satisfied that they would

  589
  adequately meet the difficulties that existed. The main provisions of the Bill were, that on the recommendation of the county and city or burgh justices, a public prosecutor should be appointed to conduct the prosecutions that arose within the different districts to be constituted by the Secretary of State, whose duties would ordinarily commence after the accused had been committed for trial; but in difficult and important cases it would be in the power of the public prosecutor to intervene by the direction of the Attorney General, or of the magistrates before commitment, with power to the public prosecutor of consulting one of three advising counsel as to the mode in which the particular prosecution should be carried on; and where the public prosecutor declined to act, or, having undertaken to act, had withdrawn, the private prosecutor should be at liberty to proceed as he might think best. He heartily concurred in the objection that was raised last year by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) to leaving the power of prosecution in the hands of the police. That would, indeed, be a serious evil, but this Bill would discriminate between the functions discharged by the police and those discharged by the public prosecutor. The functions of the former would be confined to the detection of crime, and those of the latter to getting up the evidence and preparing the case, and seeing that the prosecution was properly conducted. A second objection was that it would increase the patronage of the Crown; but the provisions of the Bill carefully met that objection by enacting that no one should be appointed to the office of public prosecutor except on the recommendation of the county magistrates or of the civic authorities in cities and boroughs. A third objection was, that it might exercise an injurious influence upon the independence of the Bar; but under this measure young barristers would have the same opportunities as under the present system, since the public prosecutor would distribute briefs in the same way as the town clerks and the clerks of the peace at present did, where the prosecution was not in the hands of private parties. The fourth objection was, that although a public prosecutor was required for the metropolis and the large towns, the same reasons did not apply to the coun-
  590
  try districts, and that, therefore, the Bill should be confined to the towns; but he found from the statistics that in the country districts 24 per cent of the prosecutions failed from the causes he had referred to. The last and most serious objection was the expense; but so far as he had been able to ascertain, he did not believe that the present expenses would be materially increased by the appointment of a public prosecutor; but on that point he would defer expressing any further opinion until the inquiry the Government had instituted on that head was completed. A public prosecutor was required for England as much as for Scotland and Ireland; and it appeared to him that the gap which had been left between the reformatory and industrial institutions and the Habitual Criminals Act would have to be filled up by taking care that they should not have in future such a vast disproportion between the number of crimes committed and the number of persons brought to justice. If the Bill were read a second time, he would wait until the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder was present himself to take charge of it, and with that view would name a distant day for its commitment, so as to give every hon. Member interested in the subject a full opportunity of suggesting Amendments or expressing in Committee his views upon it.
  MR. WESTsaid, he fully appreciated the reason for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Walpole) bringing forward this Bill, in order that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder, who was now absent on the important business of his country, returned, he might find the measure in the same position in which it was left at the close of last Session. Therefore, he would not at present offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but such opposition as was in his power to give he would reserve until the Motion was made for going into Committee. Unfortunately, he belonged to the low and degraded portion of the legal profession which had to do with the criminal law, and he was somewhat startled at hearing some of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. Under the Bill, as it now stood, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would have, as he now had in Mint eases, the

  591
  patronage of every prosecution at assizes and sessions throughout the country. The Attorney General was to be the master of every prosecution, and was to instruct the attorneys in each district. There would probably be some 650 of these officers, and they were to receive a salary of £1,000 each. ["No, no!"] That would certainly be the case under the powers of the Bill if every petty sessional division in England was to have a public prosecutor, and if the salary of £1,000 was to be given in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee which formerly sat on the subject. It was therefore obvious that the patronage to be conferred upon the Government would be enormous in these matters. With regard to indictable offences to be prosecuted, that was the main objection to the Bill, for it did not deal with those offences at all. If they appointed a public prosecutor, such as Scotland and France had, one who conducted the proceedings from the time of the commission of the offence, they would get a useful officer; but under this measure the prosecutor would not come into play until after the criminal was committed for trial by the magistrates. In his experience, nearly all the failures of justice occurred before the prisoner was committed, not after. He regarded the measure as ill-adapted for the more efficient conduct of criminal prosecutions, and on that general ground he should oppose it on going into Committee.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, at the outset, he must express surprise, after all that had been said as to the vast importance of this subject, that so few hon. Members were present on that occasion to discuss the Bill now before the House. Differing from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. West), he did not think that the failures in obtaining convictions occurred because the public prosecutor did not step in prior to the committal of the criminal by the magistrate. At any rate, that was his own opinion, based upon experience. He confessed he was startled at the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that something like 650 petty session prosecutors would have to be appointed under this Bill, at the salary of £1,000 each, for he had himself entertained strong views as to the expense which the passing of a Bill like this would entail upon the country. With
  592
  regard to the history of the measure, it was originated by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), though it was difficult to tell what particular experience in the administration of criminal justice that hon. Member had had. It had been originally submitted to a Select Committee that it might be made a good Bill, but they made a bad one of it. Then it was fostered by his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder, and now the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. S. Walpole) had taken it up, in the absence of the Recorder, and lent it the sanction of his name. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have been induced to put his name on the back of a Bill of this character. Many persons spoke about the appointment of a public prosecutor merely for the sentiment of the thing. For his part, he admitted that it was desirable to have such an officer, provided the appointment was put on a proper footing. In principle, it was certainly desirable; but when we came to put the principle into practice, and to consider the question of expense, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he fancied, be alarmed at the enormous cost likely to be entailed upon the country. He was much surprised at the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that the present state of things led to a failure of justice. He believed that that was an impression founded on exaggerated statements in articles and reports in the newspapers. The assertion was certainly not confirmed by what the right hon. Gentleman had said that night. He did not wish to deal then at greater length with the details of the Bill, as they would have the opportunity of doing that in Committee; but he wished to give Notice that he should take every opportunity of offering the measure his decided opposition.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that last year, when a similar Bill was before the House, he had stated that it was his intention to propose, on its going into Committee, that it should be confined to the Central Criminal Court; that intention he should persist in on the present occasion. The great necessity for a public prosecutor was in London, and there had been no evidence given before any Committee which had sat on that subject to justify the appointment of public prosecutors throughout the kingdom. The great

  593
  crimes which had led to the demand for such a change had mainly occurred in the metropolis; and there was no necessity for putting the counties or boroughs in the country to the immense expense which its adoption in them must occasion, for it was idle to say the cost would not he large if the Bill was to have any practical effect. Unless the public prosecutor in a county was prepared to attend the different petty sessions, the use of him would be nil; but the Bill assumed that this officer was only to be brought into action after an accused person had been committed or bailed. The measure was not a merely permissive one, but was imperative in its provisions; and, although it might be very well to try the experiment of having a public prosecutor in London, if the people of London wished it, let them not force it upon the provincial counties and boroughs, which, to use a Yorkshire phrase, had no more use for it than a cow had for a watch-pocket.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he would remind the House that nobody had ever supposed that the Bill would pass through the House without the strong opposition of many of the legal Members; but, on the other hand, no one could deny that, in the opinion of the highest judicial authorities of the land, the present system was faulty, and the necessity for a public prosecutor was a real and a serious one. The Bill might not be perfect, but he believed that it contained the elements of a great and useful reform. There was no contradiction between the statements he had just made on the previous Bill and those of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Walpole.) He repeated what had been already said, that independent of the increase in the population, the absolute number of crimes in England and Wales had diminished, that the proportion of apprehensions to crimes had increased, and that the proportion of convictions to apprehensions had also increased. This was in itself a satisfactory state of things; but still there was a large margin for improvement. Even at their best the English statistics, in these respects, could not compare with those of Scotland, a fact which might fairly be attributed to the fact that in Scotland there was a public prosecutor, whereas in England there was none. With regard to the cost, he had caused a
  594
  most careful inquiry to be conducted by the best authorities, and he hoped before the House went into Committee on the Bill to lay the results before them; but he was in a position already to say that he had no reason to apprehend that there would be any great increase in the cost of prosecution, while he hoped that there would be a considerable increase in the efficiency with which they were conducted.
  MR. EYKYN, in answer to the taunt thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight), said he must deny that he had shown any precipitancy in bringing that matter forward in a previous Session. The highest judicial authorities had pronounced the appointment of a public prosecutor to be an almost absolute necessity. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Walpole) on having brought in the Bill, and also the Government on amply redeeming their pledges to support it, which they would hardly do if it were likely to entail the expense of which they had heard such exaggerated estimates.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he could endorse the observations of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman), and might add that, having had some experience both of the system of a quasi public prosecutor in Leeds and of open prosecutions in the rest of the Riding, he could state that there was no advantage in the former over the latter. If public prosecutors were to be appointed by the town councils, those offices would become mere political appointments.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STANSFELD, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to Public Health, said, that he thought the House would concur in the purport of the measure, for it was the logical and anticipated consequence of the Local Government Bill of last year. That Bill, as the House must be aware, consolidated into one public Department the old Poor Law Board, the

  595
  Local Government Act Office, and the Medical Department of the Privy Council, and thus consolidated into one public Department the supreme administrative supervision of the laws relating to poverty and to health, and it now became his duty to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill the object of which was to take a further step in the same direction, by giving to some one body in each district the power of dealing with local sanitary matters, and by giving them new powers. The Bill was a sanitary Bill, and nothing more. It dealt with no other questions, aud it was founded upon the Report of the Sanitary Commission, which he had carefully studied and in the main followed in drawing up the measure. That Commission, whose Report was a storehouse of information and suggestion on the subject, had sat for two years, and it was composed of 21 members, nine of whom were Members of that House, and every credit should be given to them for having endeavoured to promote the great object which they had at heart. Indeed, he might say that if he had desired to be original in treating the subject he would have found it extremely difficult to travel outside the recommendations and suggestions put forward by the Commission. He had also found occasion to consult the Report of the Rivers Pollution Commission in reference to the Bill. The Sanitary Commission Report contained a series of 38 resolutions, the first of which was to the effect that it was possible at the same time to amend the law and to consolidate it in one legislative enactment. It would, of course, be impossible to deny that such an object was a desirable one, if it were possible to carry it out; but he had to state that after giving very ample and careful consideration to that recommendation of the Commissioners, he had not felt himself justified in proposing to undertake so heavy a legislative task. The House would easily understand that at a time when the law was being amended, it might not be desirable to attempt to consolidate it. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) who had presided over the Commission, had last year introduced a measure the object of which was not only to amend the law, but to consolidate it also, and that Bill had contained 450 clauses, whereas the measure he (Mr. Stansfeld) asked leave to introduce only
  596
  contained 80 odd clauses, and he though that he was justified in confining it to such modest and unambitious proportions. The next point to which he wished to allude was the proposal to establish County Boards, which, although not referred to in the recommendations of the Commission, had found a place in the Bill brought in last year by the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty. As far as his own personal opinion was concerned, he desired to take that opportunity of saying that he looked upon that conception favourably, and to express his conviction that, sooner or later, the country would be anxious to have Boards of that description to undertake the finance of justice, law, and police, and other administrative functions of a sanitary nature—conservancy of rivers and the maintenance of highways. But there were at present practical difficulties in the way of adopting the proposal. If County Boards were to take the place of existing local bodies, it would be necessary that the difficulty arising out of the want of harmony between the areas of parishes and counties should be rectified. That would be a matter of considerable difficulty, and it could not be satisfactorily disposed of except through the medium of a Committee of the House to be followed by something in the nature of a Boundary Commission. He did not, however, think it was either desirable or practicable, just at this moment, to establish County Boards. One object of the Bill was the reconstruction of the local sanitary authorities, and the other was the investing them with new sanitary powers. Of the two, he regarded the reconstruction of the sanitary authorities as the one of the greater importance. The Sanitary Acts might be divided into two classes—those which affected the sanitary authorities, whom they in future proposed to call urban, and those which applied to the country at large. The urban Acts were the Public Health Act of 1848, and the Local Government Acts of 1858, 1861 and 1863. The Nuisance Removal and the Sewage Utilization Acts contained such very large and comprehensive powers that for whatever failure or laxity of sanitary administration there had been, they must look to something more than the absence of power for an explanation. The first important Nuisance Removal

  597
  Act to which he need refer was the Act of 1855, which defined a nuisance, among other things, to be any premises so kept as to be a nuisance or injurious to health. Power was given, too, among other things, for the appointment of sanitary inspectors, to seize unwholesome food, and to prevent overcrowding. The Nuisances Removal Act of 1855 was followed by similar Acts in 1860, 1863, and 1866, and under these Acts the definitions of nuisances were enlarged, powers were given for cleansing houses, for providing ambulances, for the removal of the infected to hospitals, for the disinfection of clothing, and for the establishment of mortuaries for the reception of the dead. On the other hand, the Sewage Utilization Acts of 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1868 gave powers for the construction of sewers, to provide a supply of water for the inhabitants of different localities, to invest the local authority with the power of taking legal proceedings to prevent the pollution of streams, to provide hospitals for the reception of the sick, and, among other things, in cases of emergency, to furnish medicine and medical attendance for the benefit of the poorer classes of the population. The authorities on whom these powers were conferred were the vestries, and the House would not, perhaps, be surprised that these bodies had not universally availed themselves of the powers so bestowed. The nuisance authorities had changed from time to time. Before 1855 they were the Boards of Guardians; between 1855 and 1860 various bodies exercised the powers conferred by the Acts; between 1860 and 1868 they were again lodged in the Boards of Guardians, but in 1868 the most important of their functions—that was as regarded the nuisances connected with sewage and drainage—was taken from them and vested in the sewer authorities; in other words, in the hands of the inhabitants themselves, instead of in Boards of Guardians. While, therefore, the vestries had not sufficiently availed themselves of the powers placed in their hands, he was, he thought, entitled to say that the Boards of Guardians had not had sufficiently fair or continuous opportunities of performing the duties of nuisance authorities. He could not help thinking that the House would come to the conclusion expressed the other day at Liverpool by Lord
  598
  Derby, that the first object of sanitary reforms was the construction of proper machinery for carrying them into effect. They required three things. The first, some central and governmental supervision and inspection, was, he thought, practically provided last year. Then came the institution of defined authorities with defined responsibility. By defined authorities, he meant, in the words of the Sanitary Commission, authorities so constituted that there should be one sanitary authority for all sanitary purposes in one place; and by defined responsibility he implied that our legislation should cease to be so much as it had been permissive, and that distinct duties and responsibilities should be placed upon these bodies. With regard to the constitution of authorities they had followed the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission. They proposed to divide the sanitary authorities into urban and rural. Urban authorities were the Town Councillors in boroughs, Improvement Commissioners in Improvement Act districts, and Local Boards in Local Board districts. The rural authorities would be the Board of Guardians, with the exception of those that might be said to represent urban districts. Upon these bodies they proposed to bestow all the powers both of the Sewage Utilization and the Nuisance Removal Acts. With regard to the urban authorities, they would have allocated to them the same powers they already possessed, with an extension. Then powers were taken to combine these authorities for certain purposes, such as the constitution of port authorities, dealing with rivers and vessels thereon, which was eminently necessary in cases of epidemic invasion. Next, by Provisional Order, it would be sought to combine districts for any sanitary purposes which might seem to call for a wider area, such as the conservancy of rivers, the enlargement of sewer works, &c., and by such arrangements, at once simple, elastic, and comprehensive, it was hoped that the recommendations of the Commissioners would be effectually carried out. They did not ask for many new powers, because those existing already were extensive; but the powers they sought were of importance. As Lord Derby had said, the first great necessities, from a sanitary point of view, were pure air and pure water; and he

  599
  would add that pure air was more needed in-doors than out. Outside there might he much that was offensive; but even noxious gases, if mixed with a sufficient supply of life-giving air, might not he dangerous. But when such gases penetrated into poverty stricken, unventilated, and over-crowded houses, they were extremely dangerous. Therefore, he had taken the responsibility of recommending that the local sanitary authority should have the function, and at least the right of looking to the condition of drains, not only outside but inside houses, and of taking care that sources of disease should not, through a bad system of drains, affect the health and lives of the population. As to pure water, power existed already for supplying water. He would ask for powers to test the purity of the water which was supplied by the water companies. A noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) asked him the other day whether he proposed to deal with the adulteration of food and drugs. He did not propose to deal with the question of drugs; but as to the adulteration of food, there were powers under the Nuisance Removal Act of dealing with unwholesome food, and he proposed to extend these powers specifically in certain directions to which he need not at present allude. But he proposed also to make the local sanitary authority the authority for acting under the Food Adulteration Act of 1860. He proposed also to call upon the local sanitary bodies to provide hospitals, and all the appliances and medical attendance for the treatment of epidemics. He also intended to ask the House to give to the Local Government Board with respect to the country the same power which the Poor Law Board possessed in the metropolis, of requiring the institution of Poor Law dispensaries and the provision of drugs for the treatment of paupers, instead of including them in Poor Law Union contracts. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: Are temporary hospitals intended?] Hospitals available for epidemics, but they might or might not be temporary. He proposed, of course, to call upon the local sanitary authority to appoint sanitary officers, including medical officers of health, who, as he thought, might or might not be Poor Law medical officers. With the assistance of these officers, the Government hoped to secure statistics of disease. As to the compul-
  600
  sory registration of births and deaths, that would be provided for by another measure. He thought he had now stated in brief outline the provisions of this Bill. It reconstituted authorities and endeavoured to simplify them. It gave new powers and imposed distinct responsibilities. The clauses of this measure were framed in no spirit of distrust of local government. He had no belief in centralization; and if intelligent, independent, and public-spirited men could not be found to undertake such important duties as he had described, he knew of no means by which the objects in view could be accomplished. No proposals were made in the Bill which they did not mean seriously to submit to the House; and, knowing how much interest was taken in this subject, the Government hoped that before the measure left the House it would assume a shape which would do credit to the Legislature and to the subject, and which would be of lasting benefit to the people of the realm. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that at such an hour it was no time to discuss the details of a measure for the local government of the country. All were calling out for some such measure, and the House would readily consent to the first reading of a Government Bill. On the second reading, they should scrutinize the general scheme; but it recommended itself to the Sanitary Commissioners as part of their own Report. But he wished to explain why he intended to ask leave to introduce at the same time his Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the sanitary laws, and that was because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Stansfeld), while approving of such a scheme, did not propose to attempt to carry it out at present, but only introduced an amending or patching Bill, and because, in his opinion, the sanitary laws of this country were chiefly inoperative in consequence of their confused, contradictory, and scattered condition. The law on the subject of public health was much less defective than confused, and the amendments required, in way of addition to it, were not very many. Little more than making authorities universal and imperatively active was needed to complete the law. It was the

  601
  confusion of the law that was the chief cause of a very large and unnecessary mortality, and not only of mortality, but of chronic sickness, misery, and debility among the working classes, and, as recent experience had shown, among the highest classes also. The existing law, cleared of this confusion, would almost suffice. He himself had tried during the Recess to make himself experimentally acquainted with the law; but he found that those by whom he attempted to carry it out were wholly ignorant of its multitude and variety, and if they commenced proceedings under any provision were often tripped up by some Act of a more recent date than the one they were trying to put into force. Even the lawyers were not thoroughly acquainted with the aggregate of law, and were frequently at fault through not knowing under which of a multitude of Acts they ought to proceed. Few knew the authorities responsible, and the authorities knew not their own responsibility, nor did the people know the penalties to which they were liable, or the duties they had to perform. The first and most imperative necessity was that the law relating to public health should be consolidated, for much of the existing evil calling for remedy arose from the fact that the law was scattered over so many statutes, passed irrespectively of each other, partial, contradictory, or in repetition; and he did not hesitate to say that to add to the existing statutes without consolidating them would be to increase the mischief. Nothing was more important in this, or any free country, than that its local government should be of universal recognition and efficiency. The central Executive should set it in motion, but be kept by its activity from all temptation to supersede it. The Commission which sat upon the subject had drafted a Consolidating Bill, which had already been laid before Parliament; and what prevented the right hon. Gentleman from adopting the work of the Commission, making also the additions which he now proposed? The right hon. Gentleman said he was deterred by seeing 450 clauses in the Bill; but those clauses were already on the statute book, and the sole difference was that in the Bill of the Commission they were consolidated and reduced to order, and contradictory and superfluous parts removed. The Government Bill, together with all the
  602
  Acts left unrepealed to be read with it, involved double the number of clauses. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman would be much more likely to attain the object in view by adopting the course which he recommended than by trying to pass the present Bill, and then setting about the consolidation afterwards. Parliament would fight his new propositions actually presented more than if they were embodied in a general re-enactment of existing law. He (Sir Charles Adderley) intended, therefore, to ask leave to re-introduce last year's Consolidation Bill. At the same time he should give his hearty and zealous support to the present measure, which, also emanating from the Commissioners Report, he believed to be most essential. Possibly, the two Bills might be amalgamated. The only ground on which the Bill was at all likely to meet with opposition was that it might be supposed to entail additional expense upon the community. The subject of rates had wisely been separated from the present Bill; no new rates were proposed; it might, however, be thought that when the law was made more perfect and operative the rates, even such as now levied, would be larger in amount, but surely it was more economical to get a good return on an expenditure of £100, than to spend £99 and get nothing, or even mischief, for it. The return obtained for the present expenditure in connection with public health was certainly most inadequate. But so far from the improvement and consolidation of the law leading to a larger outlay, he believed it would lead to an actual economy in the amount expended. A principal part of the proposed consolidation consisted of an unification of offices and machinery.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONhoped that some attention would be paid in the Bill to the status of the executive officers of the nuisance authorities. He concurred in the extreme importance of local self-government, but that self-government was by no means perfect, and in many cases the members of Local Boards and vestries were elected simply for the purpose of making the Acts as inoperative as possible. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce into his Bill some provisions for making the executive officers to a certain extent independent, and not so much under the thumb of those who had to appoint them.
  MR. F. S. POWELLwas sorry to have heard from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the time had not arrived for the consolidation of the laws relating to the health of the people, and hoped that when the Bill before the House became law it would contain a wider range of provisions, and among these he would like to see clauses regulating the closing of wells which were unwholesome, the making it compulsory to provide a public mortuary in every district, and also some disinfecting apparatus. Instead of the system of building bye-laws existing in the present Acts, the words recommended by the Sanitary Commission should be substituted, and he hoped the Government would also introduce the definition of nuisances which the Commissioners recommended.
  DR. BREWERcontended that more power should be given to the medical authorities, and that they should not be the mere clerks of the nuisance committee of the Local Boards.
  LOUD EUSTACE CECILbelieved that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would deserve the thanks of the whole community for the measure which he had brought forward, and to which he had pleasure in giving his entire support.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Public Health, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 48.]

  REAL ESTATE (TITLES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GREGORY, Bill to amend and extend the Act to facilitate the proof of Title to and conveyance of Real Estates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GREGORY, Mr. PEMBERTON, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 60.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Bill for consolidating and amending all the Laws on Public Health and Local Government for England and Wales, exclusive of the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. M'CLEAN, Mr. RICHARD, and Mr. POWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 49.]

  MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GREGORY, Bill for discontinuing the Registration of Deeds, Wills, and other matters affecting Land in the county of Middlesex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GREGORY, Mr. CUBITT, and Mr. GOLDNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Bill to amend "The Married Women's Property Act, 1870," as far as it relates to debts contracted by Women who afterwards marry, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. LOPES, and Mr. GOLDNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 53.]

  BAKEHOUSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOCKE, Bill to amend the Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act, 1853, so far as relates to Bakehouses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE, Mr. HOLMS, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54.]

  POOR LAW LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to extend and explain the Law relating to Loans for purposes connected with the Relief of the Poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. STANSFELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 51.]

  TRADE PARTNERSHIPS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the practicability of a Registration of Trade Partnerships and into the best means of effecting such Registration."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  And, on February 22, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BARNETT, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GREGORY, Colonel GRAY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Mr. MONK, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. PEEK, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Mr. EDMUND POTTER, Sir DAVID SALOMONS, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Major WATERHOUSE, Mr. WHITWELL, and Mr. NORWOOD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Burial Grounds* (6).

VACCINATION LAWS.—QUESTION.
LORD BUCKHURSTasked Her Majesty's Government, If the facts are true as reported in the public Press, that in a case of vaccination lately brought before the magistrates by the vaccination officer of Islington, the magistrates threw every obstacle in the way of the due carrying out of the Vaccination Laws?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had made inquiries in the proper quarters and found that no complaint had been made to the Local Government Board, or the Government, on the matter to which the noble Lord's Question referred.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—APPOINTMENT OF SIR ROBERT COLLIER—THE DIVISION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDstated that, in reporting the division of last night a mistake had been made as to the numbers. The Not-Contents were 88, and not 89; so that the majority for the Not-Contents was 1 instead of 2.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the correction was material. It would be interesting to each one of the noble Lords who had been brought from Italy and other places to vote for the Government to know that the majority on the side of Government was just 1.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not know why it should be assumed that the error lay with the Tellers—it was just as likely that it occurred with the Division clerks. In that case the numbers would remain as they were reported.
EARL GRANVILLEasked who those noble Lords who had been brought from Italy were? He would be glad to see them.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.