Sitting of 16 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Diplomatic and Consular Services [No. 314].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [July 15] reported—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [256].
Committee—Public Health (re-comm.) [215]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Parish Constables Abolition* [97–255]; Basses Lights (Ceylon)* [234]; Church Seats [194]; Pawnbrokers (re-comm)* [233].
Considered as amended—Metalliferous Mines Regulation* [236]; Courts of Law (Scotland) Agents* [223]; Wild Birds Protection [247].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [240], and passed.
Third Reading—Victoria Park* [232]; Grand Juries (Ireland)* [226]; Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* [225]; Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000), and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
  ARGUMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15th 1872 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.—North America (No. 12, 1872).
WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the Report made to the Lambeth vestry on the 4th instant by Dr. M'Cormack, Medical Officer of Health for the Lambeth district, that on the 18th June he examined the water of the Lambeth Company, and also that of the Vauxhall Company, with results showing but very slight improvement in the water supplied by the Lambeth Company, and that the Water of the Vauxhall Company continued to exhibit the same degree of impurity as it did the previous month, some means cannot be adopted, either by fine or otherwise, to oblige the Vauxhall Company to furnish pure water?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEpointed out that the Board of Trade had no power to fine in such cases. If it were proved that a company furnished impure water or an insufficient supply, as in the case of Bermondsey, the Board of Trade could serve a notice upon it, requiring it to remove the cause of complaint, and if reasonable means were not taken to do so, the Board might then—but not till then—proceed in a Court of Law with a view to the infliction of penalties. In regard to the case mentioned, the evidence before him did

  1243
  not altogether tally with that contained in the Question. He had not seen the Report of Dr. M'Cormack, but he had before him that of Major Bolton, the Water Examiner of the Board of Trade, for the month of June—those Reports were furnished every month—which stated that on the 11th and 15th of that month the water of the Vauxhall Company was clear and bright, and that of the Lambeth Company clear but imperfectly filtered, owing to the filtering area being insufficient—a defect which the company was taking steps to remedy. The Report of the Registrar General (Dr. Frankland) for the same month stated that the Thames water delivered in London maintained the improved quality he had previously reported, and that all the companies, with the exception of the East London Company, were delivering clear and transparent water. The evidence before him, therefore, went to show that the state of things was better than the Question of the hon. and gallant Member implied.

POST OFFICE—POSTMASTERSHIP OF EXETER.—QUESTION.
MR. BOWRING (for Mr. MELLOR)asked the Postmaster General, If it be true, as stated in the "Civil Service Gazette," that the appointment of Postmaster of the city of Exeter has been given to a Post Office surveyor residing in the West Indies, who is to retain his colonial appointment and continue to reside in those colonies; and, if true, would he give the reasons for appointing a person to the said office who is not to reside in that city?
MR. MONSELL: Mr. Bennett, who has been appointed postmaster of Exeter, was for many years Surveyor of the Post Office in the West Indies, having St. Thomas as his head-quarters; but there being less necessity than formerly for a resident surveyor, he was brought back to England, and, instead of being pensioned, was made Postmaster of Carlisle, from which place he has now been transferred to Exeter. In his present capacity—as was the case when he was at Carlisle—his services are available should it be necessary to dispatch him to the West Indies to make a personal investigation; but it is seldom that such investigation is now necessary. Except on the rare occasions on which he may
1244
be sent to the West Indies, he will reside at Exeter, as he resided at Carlisle during the whole time he held the appointment of postmaster of that city.
SIR LAWRENCE PALK: Then Mr. Bennett might be required to go to the West Indies?
MR. MONSELL: He might be required to go once, perhaps, in two or three years to the West Indies. It is occasionally highly necessary that the Post Office should send out some one.

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)

[BILL 215.] COMMITTEE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Public Health Bill).
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
SIR MASSEY LOPES, rose to move—
"That, while fully admitting the urgent necessity for Sanitary Legislation, this House is of opinion that the power proposed by this Bill to be given to the central authority over local expenditure should be accompanied by some provision for contributions from Imperial resources in aid of burdens which being imposed for the benefit of the community at large, ought not to be charged on one description of property only."
The hon. Baronet said, he had listened with great interest and attention to the statement which had been made on the subject by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on Friday last. That statement affected very materially the Motion which stood on the Paper in his name, and removed almost altogether the grounds on which his opposition to the Bill was based. For himself, he must state most emphatically that he never was adverse to sanitary reform; he was, on the contrary, most anxious to aid the Government in passing a good and just measure dealing with the question. Though a strong advocate for an equitable readjustment of local burdens—and here he felt he might speak for others as well as himself—he was not only unwilling to obstruct, but was most desirous to aid and assist all social improvements; and provided the mode of levying the necessary expenditure was just and equitable, he cared not how far we advanced in that direction, but he was strongly op-

1245
posed to having an outlay which was intended for the general benefit of the community raised from one class and upon one description of property. The Government had practically accepted the principle embodied in his Motion, and the Amendments that stood in his name. He thanked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), more especially, for having conceded the moderate and reasonable proposition that he had made—namely, that half the expenses of the Medical Officers and Inspectors of Nuisances should be paid by the State; he further thanked him for having adopted the suggestion that he had privately made to him, that facilities should be given to the local authorities of obtaining loans from the Public Loan Commissioners for carrying out sanitary improvements. Complaints had, he might add, been made, and he thought very properly, of the very inadequate discussion which the Bill had received. There might be a reason for that, in the fact that the Royal Commissioners had exhausted the subject; but Blue Books did not make their way down into the country, and it was only by discussion in that House that the public generally could get information about the present measure. The Bill professed to be founded on the Report of the Royal Commissioners, and therefore it was desirable to ascertain what really were the recommendations of those Commissioners In the first place, they recommended that all existing provisions relating to the subject should be repealed and consolidated into one comprehensive measure; secondly, that all sanitary Acts, which were practically permissive, should be made compulsory; thirdly, that there should be a fresh and improved organization of the parochial authorities, and that the central government should exercise a control over them; and lastly, they emphatically stated that, as the public health was of national importance, the Government ought to aid in providing the necessary expenditure, which should not be met by rates placed on one particular description of property alone. Now, how far had those recommendations been carried into effect in the present Bill? The Bill altogether ignored the first and most material recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, the simplification and consolidation of the existing statutes. They were 25 in number, 15
1246
being general and 10 special. Those statutes were most conflicting and contradictory, and he defied anyone to understand them. All those statutes would still remain in force. The right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), who had given great attention to this subject, was of opinion that the consolidation of those statutes was more important than any amendment of them, and that the addition of another statute would render confusion worse confounded. The President of the Local Government Board admitted that it would be just to give the local authorities a digest or code of those statutes, and on being asked to give the House that information of which they were very much in want, stated that it might be found in the Sanitary Report, but that was a document extending over 170 pages. With reference to the second and third recommendations of the Commissioners—that all sanitary provisions should be henceforth compulsory, and that the local authorities should be reorganized and placed under the control of the central authority—this Bill went a long way to carry out those objects, and might be considered by sanitary reformers a step in the right direction. With reference to these recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill would not give any new powers to the Local Government Board; but that statement was not exactly correct. If it was, it would be the gravest condemnation of the Bill, because something was necessary to be done which was not done at present, and the Bill undoubtedly took powers to effect this; he could quite understand that the object of the right hon. Gentleman in making this statement was to minimize any claims for Imperial assistance. The 7th and 8th clauses of the Bill contemplated the making of the 25 permissive statutes to which he had referred compulsory, and the 10th clause made the provision of proper machinery and the staff compulsory. As soon as the Bill passed, the country would be divided into districts, and the appointment of Government Inspectors must take place; and this was taking a vastly increased power, for then all complaints would originate with the Inspectors and not, as at present, with the ratepayers. Whilst a measure was permissive the ratepayers could do anything or nothing;

1247
but the Inspectors would have the power of ordering certain things to be done. The machinery that was optional before would be compulsory; power would be virtually taken from the ratepayers who found the money, and conferred on the central authority, who, except for these concessions, would have contributed nothing. Now it was optional with the rural district whether it would tax itself; hereafter it would be compulsory upon it to provide staff and machinery; the Government Inspectors would direct and control both, and the local authorities would be obliged to carry out all regulations and orders at the bidding and to the satisfaction of the central authority. He admitted that very many of the objectionable powers proposed to be conferred on the central authority had been omitted in the amended edition of this Bill. The powers now taken were not so patent or prominent, they were kept more dark and were not particularized; but they were contained in these numerous statutes which would all now be brought into action—they were implied, and would be exercised. With reference to the expense of carrying out sanitary legislation, the Royal Commissioners expressed very strong and decided opinions, and as their recommendations would carry more weight than any arguments of his, he would quote them. They said—
"It seems desirable that the State should aid the local interests in securing efficient sanitary administration. It is a matter of Imperial importance. Admitted, with regard to some of the principal purposes for which a rate will be imposed, its incidence on real property will be peculiarly fitting; but, as regards others of those purposes, it may fairly be questioned why the expenses of benefits so general should be borne exclusively by the taxation of real property. Local expenditure should be relieved by grants from the Imperial Exchequer. In any degree in which an amended health law may lead to greater expenditure by an improved system of inspection, and imposing greater medical supervision and securing further medical aid, or by any other measure not purely or necessarily local in its origin or effect, it seems expedient and just that the localities should receive assistance from the State. That local health taxation was inseparable from the larger question of local taxation generally."
It would be impossible to estimate the increase of local burdens or the expense to which the local boards would be put in carrying out this measure. He was sorry the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland) was not in his
1248
place, because he might have appealed to him on this point, on which he had written an able article. That hon. Gentleman had constructed a new village, and had brought into operation some of the most improved sanitary reforms. He had expended £700 on sewage alone, which was equivalent to a rate of 1s. in the pound, and had provided a water supply at a cost of £300—making together a rate of more than 1s. 6d. in the pound. Those expenses were heavier in rural than in urban districts. In urban districts there were local bodies and a staff of officers, and a more central and economical administration could be carried out, and only one medical officer and one Inspector were required; but in rural districts officers and Inspectors would be required, and the machinery must therefore be more expensive. The duties of those officers could be spread over a wider district, and they must be provided with some means of locomotion. The late President of the Poor Law Board, in the Local Taxation Returns which he had laid before the House, had stated that in the urban districts the payment was 4s. in the pound, whilst in the rural it was only 2s. 9d. It was true that the Poor Law proper charges were 1¾d. less than in the urban districts; but the improvement rates, which were for sanitary purposes, had made the difference, and there was no security that in the country those rates would not run up to the same amount. Then what was the boon offered both to urban and rural districts by this Bill? The only boon offered was in the shape of loans. He had himself suggested this scheme to the right hon. Gentleman, and was very glad that his suggestion had been accepted. No doubt, the granting of loans was a great boon. In towns large works might be carried on, and a large expenditure incurred, in such cases loans would be most valuable; but in rural districts the works would have to be spread over large spaces, and although the granting of loans was a great concession, they would not do so much good in the country as in the case of large towns. There were cogent and unanswerable reasons why some State assistance should be given to local authorities in consideration of the vast expenditure contemplated by this Bill—first, because public health was a matter of Imperial importance and for

1249
the benefit of the community at large; and, secondly, in consideration of the power and control which would be practically taken from the local authorities and conferred on the central. He would ask, would sanitary reform benefit only one portion of the community? Would its advantage be national, or purely local? Why was it called a "Public" Health Bill? They were told "public health was public wealth." Surely, then, public wealth ought in some measure to guard, protect, and provide for it. Were sanitary precautions taken to protect persons or property? If persons, why should only one class contribute towards it? Dr. Simon told them that, in consequence of deficient sanitary administration, the rate of mortality was higher, and that so many thousand persons died prematurely. Was that a national loss or not? If cholera or any other epidemic visited them, would those diseases confine themselves to the owners or occupiers of real property? Surely they were no respecter of persons. The fund-holder and the capitalist was equally liable to them. Lastly, he would ask if public health was not a matter of public interest, how could they justify this State control and interference? He admitted that they had no right to ask the Government for assistance in respect to sewerage and water, for those were local matters and special expenses. But with respect to common charges or general expenses they had a fair claim for assistance. A precedent had been set in the payment to Poor Law medical officers, and he did not see why it should not be followed in the case of sanitary officers. Independent of this material relief to ratepayers, he thought this principle of State contribution—of dividing the expenses—where the objects were both local and national, was a most sound and salutary one. It was a great check and safeguard against wanton and reckless expenditure on the part of both the State and ratepayers—neither party would advocate any questionable outlay. What was the chief reason that sanitary legislation had been hitherto neglected in the rural districts? There was a natural reluctance on the part of ratepayers to tax themselves permissively when the expense would fall entirely on the narrow and unfairly burdened area of real property, and would thus aggravate present injustice; and this feeling had retarded
1250
many social improvements. When all power of remonstrance in certain matters was taken from the ratepayers, and the Inspectors had the power of ordering whatever they thought proper without waiting for a requisition on the part of the inhabitants, he thought a portion of the expense ought to be borne by the public Exchequer. He had a strong opinion that they ought not to have gone into the Public Health Bill until the question of local taxation had been settled. He had remonstrated; but his remonstrances had been almost futile. He had protested against the education rate; but he was told by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to wait till they got to the question of local taxation. So also he had protested against the charge for vaccination when brought forward by the Vice President of the Council, and he was met with a similar reply. Early in the Session, when he brought forward the question of disallowances for criminal prosecutions, it was admitted that he had made out a strong case indeed; but again he was put off by being asked to wait until the question of public prosecutors was dealt with. If the Government had not conceded his proposition that a moiety of the salaries of medical officers and Inspectors to be appointed under this Bill should be paid by the State, they would have contravened the letter and the spirit of the Resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority of this House on the 16th April last—namely—
"That it is expedient to remedy the injustice of imposing Taxation for National objects on one description of property only;"
and though it was true that this Resolution particularized three objects only, it was not confined to them, but was intended to be of general application; and that House would have stultified itself if it had allowed the whole of those charges to be imposed on real property only. He regretted that they were not able to survey this measure of sanitary reform as a whole, and that, to a certain extent, they were legislating in the dark—they ought to have been able to see at once what they were going to do, how they were going to do it, and how they were going to pay for it, instead of adding one more statute to the chaotic and incongruous mass that already existed. The Royal Commissioners had

1251
sat four years, they had not only recommended a policy, but had drafted a Bill to give effect to it. That policy was a comprehensive and intelligible one—it was a wise and just one—and if their recommendations were adopted as a whole, he thought there were few Members in that House who would not be prepared to endorse them; but if they were going to deal with this vast subject by piecemeal legislation, he was afraid that they would pass a measure that would not reflect the same credit on the Government or fulfill the just expectations of the people. On the principle, however, that half a loaf was better than no bread, and in consideration of the concessions which the Government had made to his proposals, he should be unwilling to take upon himself the responsibilities of obstructing sanitary legislation, and therefore would beg leave to withdraw the Motion that stood in his name.
MR. PELLsaid, there was one point which the hon. Baronet had omitted to mention, and that was that instead of one Bill the House had really had three Bills before them on this subject this Session; first, the original Government Bill; then, the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley); and now, the Bill of the Government in an amended and shorter form; and yet there had not been any general debate on so large and important a question. The present Bill, though it was considerably shorter than the original Bill of the Government, was one of vast importance, and would require study to master its details, which embraced no fewer than 20 subjects, and contained provisions of which the country knew very little indeed. He was glad to hear that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, and he joined with the hon. Baronet in thanking the Government for the concession they had made on the subject of expenses; but still he did not think that the concession went quite far enough. But after all the Bill might prove to be only a provisional one.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTwished to say a word with reference to the aspect of the question as it affected borough populations. The view which the boroughs took of the question was some what different from that which was stated by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir
1252
Massey Lopes), who had emaciated the doctrine—"You may govern us as much as you please, provided you will only pay for it," and who spoke of placing the management of sanitary affairs in the hands of a central department. Now, if that were the object or the result of the Bill—which he did not believe it to be—it would meet with very great opposition from the borough populations, because those boroughs which possessed well-constituted local authorities, desired that their independence should be respected, and their responsibility maintained, and the more they were interfered with the more their efficiency would be weakened. He hoped there was no intention to invade the independence of the existing local authorities in boroughs, but that they would be left free and unfettered in the exercise of their discretion, and armed with such additional powers to be exercised on their own responsibility as might be thought necessary. As to the question of expenses, a communication from his own constituents told him that they would prefer paying all their officers, and to have full control over them. If the local authorities in boroughs were willing to bear the cost of their own staff they should be left as much as possible to their own responsibility, and be free from the interference of any central authority. In most boroughs the authorities already constituted were perfectly able and willing to do their own work.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had informed the House that, owing to the lateness of the Session and stress of weather, he had had to lighten his ship in order to bring it into port; but in lightening his Bill he had thrown overboard the valuable cargo and left only the refuse and the ballast. The Bill had been a long time before the House, but the second reading was taken at a time when few Members had returned from their Easter holidays, so that there had been very little discussion upon it. The faults found with the Bill throughout the country, however, were that it failed to establish one single authority for sanitary matters throughout the country, and that the various sanitary authorities which it proposed to establish were of a bad description, and would be found in practice to be useless unless governed by an intermediate sani-

1253
tary authority between them and the central Government. It would be acknowledged when the subject came to be duly considered that the only sanitary authority which would be efficient would be an authority which was of the same description in every part of the country—an authority of a high class over the various local authorities, but not so central as Parliament—that was to say, having more local knowledge than Parliament—an authority whose area should in every case be co-extensive with the evils which had to be remedied. It was on this point that he had dissented from the Report of his brother Commissioners. The Report of his Committee in 1864 had, nevertheless, been unanimous on the point; and he had brought in a Bill in 1865 to carry it out. The question as to the sanitary authority was a question as to area. If the parish were to be the unit, then the union must be the larger area, and the Guardians would be the authority; but if the unit were the Petty Sessions district or the Highway district, then the county would be the larger area, and the Quarter Sessions, or a County Board, would be the authority. But if the Guardians were to be the sanitary authority, then the county could not be the area of the intermediate authority; because the two were incommensurate, and their areas could not be made to coincide. There was, moreover, no ground in reason, as he would presently show, for intrusting the management of a river to a county authority. The Bill before the House did not provide for an intermediate authority, and the local authorities which it constituted were as follows:—For the urban districts, Town Councils, or Improvement Commissioners, or a Local Government Board; for rural districts, Boards of Guardians. Now, the urban authorities were the worst possible, for Town Councils were themselves the greatest offenders, as they polluted all the rivers with sewage, while the manufacturers who sat in those councils ran all their manufacturing refuse into the rivers. As for the Boards of Guardians, the Royal Sanitary Commissioners were unanimous in not recommending them as the sanitary authority in rural districts. The Commissioners proposed that only Guardians who should be elected for three years, instead of for one year, should be the sanitary authority; but the weight
1254
of evidence was against even that recommendation, except on the condition that an intermediate authority should be placed over them. It had been amply proved that the Guardians failed to do their duty, and only cared to reduce the rates. Moreover, no one had ever succeeded in making them do their duty. The case of the St. Pancras Guardians was a historic monument in support of that proposition. The Government was, in fact, impotent against both Town Councils and Boards of Guardians, because the Government feared the odium of a collision, which might, indeed, prove dangerous to the State. It was on that ground that Mr. Tom Taylor, the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and one of the highest authorities on these subjects, favored the proposal of an intermediate authority, which he termed a "buffer," between the central and the local Governments. This word "buffer" designated a large, independent, and influential body, which would be able to compel the local authorities, and which would cause no danger to the State if it should come into collision with the local authorities. It designated a body not as central as Parliament, and, therefore, possessing more local knowledge than Parliament, but yet with less prejudice and less narrowness than Town Councils or Boards of Guardians. Local knowledge was very necessary, because localities differed so much that Acts of Parliament had to be made very general; and then if there were not a legislative body to apply them to the localities, the Acts of Parliament must remain inoperative. There were two maxims which he thought ought to govern all such questions. The first was, that the affairs of a body of people must not be left to the enterprise of a few persons, whether corporations, or companies, or individuals, but must be managed by general action—namely, by agents responsible to the whole body; for persons sought only their own good and not the general advantage. In other words, the area of the ruling authority must be as large as the extent of the evils to be remedied. The second maxim was that those agents should be responsible only to the persons concerned—that was to say, the area of the ruling authority must not be larger than the extent of the evils to be remedied. If the authority were too high, or, in

1255
other words, if the area were too large, it would have too little local knowledge and interest; while if, on the other hand, it were too low, as in the case of Town Councils, it would be subject to local prejudices and selfish interests. Moreover, when the authority was too high, the responsibility would be diluted by a multiplicity of questions coming before it which concerned only some of the people and not others; or, to put it differently, the interest of the whole body of people in the acts of the ruling authority, would be too slight. Whenever bodies were far asunder—as Parliament was from Town Councils—there was always a want of community of interest and co-operation between them; and then if the initiative rested with the towns the effect would be sporadic—some towns would take action, and not others; while if the initiative rested with the central government—that was to say, if there were a supervising government—the towns would be quite apathetic. These maxims had been forced upon his attention when he had to deal with the cattle plague; and the results of his efforts, in various directions, to stay that plague, had left no doubt on his mind of the truth of those maxims. The result of this reasoning was that all the affairs of the watershed or river basin should be left to a Watershed Board, thus relieving Parliament of all special legislation; and that the English Parliament should attend only to those affairs which related to the whole of England. There were many persons, who desired to put a County Board in the place of a Watershed Board, but this would not do; it was impossible that it should work. Two examples would be sufficient to prove that. Take, for example, the pollution of rivers by sewage. London had spent £6,000,000 to carry away its sewage, and yet it had to endure the pollution of the river by the towns higher up. The town of Salford offered to expend £80,000 to defecate the River Irwell, if Manchester and the towns higher up would do the same, but they refused. There was evidently a want of unity of action over the whole river basin. Every town and every person felt the injury, and yet assisted the evil, and the one that desisted from committing the injury received no reward. The landowner who obtained an injunction against a city for running its sewage into the river
1256
himself ran the sewage of his own house into the same river or its tributary. Every manufacturer desired to obtain pure water—one calico printer had given evidence that he would save £3,000 a-year if the river were pure. Yet every manufacturer polluted the stream for those below him. Every village and every house polluted the river or its tributaries; and yet they all cried "Shame!" and demanded pure water. What was wanted, then, was unity of action. What was required was that the towns higher up should undertake expensive works for those lower down. The question was indivisible for the whole river basin; for the water of the tributaries was the water of the river. Every town, therefore, must have an authority to protect it from the towns higher up, and to compel it not to injure the towns below. Look at another example—solid refuse. Every manufacturer, every gardener, shot his rubbish into the stream Every flood carried it a little lower down the river. The bed of the river was thus raised. Indeed, it was given in evidence before the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers, and before the Committee of 1864, that the beds of the rivers in Lancashire and Yorkshire were raised on the average two inches a-year. Thus the water level in the surrounding plains was raised, the drains ceased to run, the land became water-logged, evaporation, fogs, and miasmata were increased, and the soil became cold and unproductive. This was a great sanitary question, for, as the medical officer of the Privy Council had shown in his ninth and tenth Reports, consumption varied with the sodden condition of the soil. In order to stop evaporation, the water level in the surrounding plains should be four feet below the surface. To obtain that result there must be arterial drainage—the drains of one district being carried into the district lower down, in order to obtain a fall. Thus the river basin must be dealt with as a whole. Arterial drainage was watershed drainage, and it was necessary for health. Thus unity of action over the whole watershed or river basin was absolutely requisite to obtain sanitary amelioration. Then they might have such sanitary authorities as Town Councils, Improvement Commissioners, Local Government Boards, and Boards of Guardians; but without such an au-

1257
thority these local authorities would not do their duty; and who would compel them to act? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) said the central Government would do so; but the exigencies of party Government prevented any such proceeding? Were the Courts of Law to do so? The rapid growth of these evils proved the inadequacy of the Courts of Law to deal with the question. Town Councils would not prosecute each other, because none of them could go into court with clean hands; and manufacturers would not prosecute, because they, too, were all sinners in this respect, and could not throw the first stone. The central Parliament had proved itself powerless to use compulsion. When the Mersey and Irwell Purification Act was passed, in 1863 or 1864, everybody said it was a most stringent and despotic measure; but it had not been enforced—it had remained a dead letter, because there was no one to compel its enforcement. He believed there had not been a single conviction under that Act. [Mr. HIBBERT said, there had been several convictions.] They must have been very small ones, for they were never mentioned to the Commissioners. In order to compel the local authorities, there must be a Court having jurisdiction over the whole area of the river basin, whose interest it would be to stop the existing evils. A Watershed Board, by its very nature and constitution, was calculated to do this. The representatives of the towns lower down would combine to prevent a town higher up from running its sewage into the river; and the towns higher up would combine to compel the authorities at a lower level to carry out arterial drainage. He believed they would never have sanitary amelioration except by a provincial institution of that kind; and he also believed that this Bill, so far from promoting sanitary amelioration, would, without provincial Parliaments, stand in the way of it. He had given notice of some Amendments; but a private Member could not do much, and the matter should, therefore, be left in the hands of the Government. He would not now enlarge on the effect which these provincial Parliaments would have on the country, by educating it for self-government, and marking out those who were qualified for higher posts of rule. Still less would he allude to the puri-
1258
fying effect which it would have on the House of Commons if all local jobs were delegated to local Parliaments. He would only say this—That which he had suggested was the only policy of Sanitatis sanitatum which was worthy of adoption, and which would cause any sanitary amelioration. It would induce towns to desist from doing that which was injurious to health; and thus, while it benefited the country at large, by affording a means of education in self-government, and by raising the House of Commons to the dignity of the ancient Privy Council;—it would also benefit individuals by purifying the rivers, by decreasing consumption, and by a general sanitary improvement.
MR. GOURLEYprotested against the statement of the noble Lord that Town Councils had neglected their duty with reference to the cattle plague, and argued that if representatives of the people, like members of Town Councils and Boards of Guardians, were to be accused of pursuing a selfish policy, the same imputation might be cast upon Members of that House. He, however, should be sorry to sit there as representing private or selfish interests, because he believed hon. Members were sent to that House to promote the public good. He trusted his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would not be deterred by adverse criticism or objections as to financial policy from proceeding with the Bill, which he considered to be far more important to the people of this country than any principle of either Imperial or local taxation. If Parliament delayed the passing of this Bill, it would have to bear the whole responsibility of any future epidemic. The evils of defective sanitary arrangements had been experienced last autumn in Scarborough and Sheffield and other places. This Bill sought merely to impose upon the local authorities the duty of carrying into effect existing sanitary Acts, and when once responsible authorities had been established in ports, towns, and rural districts much of the present danger would be avoided. To defer legislation upon this subject would be disgraceful to their common Christianity and the civilization of the country.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKregretted that his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had accepted the offer made to him by the

1259
Government, because he believed those who had to bear the burden of this Act would have reason hereafter to deplore, as county Members had deplored before, that they had ever entered into partnership with the Government. He wished to point out that with respect to rural districts this Bill would require Boards not qualified for the work to construe numerous difficult Acts of Parliament, and also to find the means of putting them into execution. One of those Acts was the Labourers' Dwellings Act, and by that and other measures the local authorities would have power of shutting up any house that might be deemed unfit for human habitation. So far as he was aware, there were few of the labourers' cottages in this country which would bear the examination of sanitary Inspectors, and it was a well-known fact that there was a great want of accommodation for the rural labouring population.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Baronet was under a misapprehension, as the powers of the Artisans and Labourers Act were handed over to the urban authorities.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKobserved, that at any rate if the Bill was free from that act of commission, it was still most objectionable for its faults of omission. Year after year they had been promised Bills which should decide the great question of the outfall of sewage, consolidate existing Acts in such a manner as to make their operation more simple, and deal with the sanitary state of the rural as well as the urban population. Yet this Bill did not even recognize the great want of means for improving the dwellings of the labouring class. He, for one, should have been glad if this Bill had given power to shut up such houses as were unfit for labourers' habitations, and also provided facilities for landed proprietors to participate in the benefits which this Bill proposed to confer upon the urban population. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would bear these points in mind next year. He could not but regret that this mutilated portion of the Bill was the only part of the measure they were permitted to discuss. So far as the rural districts were concerned, the machinery provided by the Bill was cumbrous, heavy, and expensive. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Hunting-
1260
donshire (Lord Robert Montagu) in thinking it necessary that more power should be given to local authorities, and less to the central Board in London. He was convinced that before many years had passed the Board in London would put their hands deeply into the pockets of the ratepayers in rural districts, and compel them to carry out fancy regulations quite unsuitable to the circumstances of the labouring classes. With regard to the urban population, the Bill was meagre, disappointing, and insufficient. Altogether it was hardly desirable, at this late period of the Session, to discuss the Bill in the manner in which it would be discussed if it was proceeded with. He regarded the Bill with the greatest possible suspicion, and thought the country would lose nothing if it was postponed until next year, when a more perfect measure might be introduced.
MR. HIBBERTremarked that it was difficult to satisfy hon. Members when some of them thought the Bill went too far and others considered that it did not go far enough; but he was sure that if a measure containing 100 or 200 clauses for the consolidation of existing Acts had been laid upon the Table, all would have agreed in saying that it was impossible to consider such a Bill at this time of the year. The Bill had been cut down to provisions establishing machinery for carrying out sanitary laws in urban and rural districts, and it did not impose, as the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) seemed to imagine, any new duties, with the single exception of compelling urban and rural authorities to appoint an officer of health, as recommended by the Sanitary Commission. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) had made a concession with respect to the payment of one-half of the expenses of that officer; but he (Mr. Hibbert) trusted the central authority would never undertake to pay the whole of those expenses, because by so doing it would undermine the whole system of local self-government. The existing sanitary laws were four in number—the Local Government Act—under which the local boards throughout the country were formed—the Nuisances Prevention and Removal Act, the Act for the Creation of Improvement Commissioners, and the Utilization of Sewage Act. At present there was one authority to carry

1261
out the Utilization of Sewage Act, and another—the Board of Guardians—to carry out the Nuisances Removal Act; and the Bill would remedy that defect by vesting the whole authority in one local board—a change which would, he thought, be very advantageous. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said the other day that this Bill was "nothing but a muddle;" but he (Mr. Hibbert) thought that if things had been left as they were, they would still be in a state of muddle. When this Bill became law he believed it would operate beneficially, and would be received with satisfaction by all classes in the country. It was said that this Bill would impose fresh expense; but how was it possible to frame a sanitary organization without that? Increased rates had been laid upon towns to secure sanitary arrangements, and when these had been carried out their property would be found to be of the highest value. He believed that by passing this measure into law they would be taking a great step in advance, and this might lead to a further consolidation of the law in the future.
COLONEL BARTTELOTdespaired that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would ever know how to manage that House, for it was absurd, when he knew the importance of such a Bill, that they should be discussing the measure, on this stage of it, at such a time, instead of its having been taken at a period when those most interested were enabled to be present and assist at the discussion, and when the various clauses might then have received proper attention. Yet they were now called upon to pass this most important measure, affecting the health of the people, in the middle of July, when it was impossible to discuss the question properly before a weary House. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman thought he must endeavour to carry out the whole of the measures which were named in the Queen's Speech. If it could be shown—and he should appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) on this question—that this measure would benefit the people of this country even in a small degree, he should be glad to help in producing such a result. The maxim Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas had been placed before them; but they had not
1262
even now the first measure of the Government upon this subject complete. No doubt it contained many well-drawn clauses, which would have met with hostility from Gentlemen below the gangway; but he must say, with all respect, that when these provisions touched the great moneyed interests, those Gentlemen were not prepared to sacrifice their rights and privileges to what would be conducive to the welfare of the people. He appealed to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), who was for equal legislation for England, Scotland, and Ireland, what he thought of the exclusion of the two last-named countries from the benefits of this legislation? He had considered this matter very carefully, and had made many inquiries on the subject. Whenever he had asked Boards of Guardians if they would have the management of the Public Health Bill, the answer was, that they would rather have nothing whatever to do with it; but when he had asked if another body was to administer the funds, the case was very much altered, and they seemed to prefer to retain in their own hands the administration of the funds. He protested against the Local Government Boards interfering in matters beyond their province. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would be prepared hereafter to consider the question in a wider spirit. He wished to state distinctly and clearly that he did not want to be handed over by this Bill to the hands of the doctors, who in other respects, he admitted, performed great services. He did not want to see a great Medical Board established, composed of men with high salaries, acting without regard to law when sanitary matters were involved, and also without regard to expense. He ventured to hope that, when they went into Committee on the Bill, care would be taken to establish proper control over the local medical inspectors, and that they should not be appointed for life, but for a term of three, four, or five years, and that the appointments of medical officers should be similarly regulated. A great meeting had been held at Reading on this subject, and the feeling was unanimous upon this question of a controlling power. By the course he proposed no injustice would be inflicted on any of these gentlemen. He had recently had placed in his hands a

1263
notice from Plymouth, conveying the wish that the word "may" should be substituted for "shall," and thence also came the expression of opinion that they had not the control which they ought to possess. If there was one grain of good in the Bill, it was right it should proceed. If it passed, he hoped it would do good. If the Bill did not pass, he hoped it would be clearly understood it was not because they in any way objected to sanitary reform or improvement; but because the Government had not chosen to bring that important subject at a sufficiently early period before the House to enable them effectually to deal with it.
MR. C. S. READsaid, he thought it would have been ungracious in his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) if he had persisted in his Amendment and divided the House on the present occasion. The hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk) said he had entered into partnership with the Government; but he rather thought the Government had, on the other hand, gone into partnership with him and other local taxation reformers; for they had assented to the Amendments of his hon. Friend, which, however, they could not well avoid without stultifying the vote given in last April by the House. He desired that this should in no sense be made a party question, which it could not be unless it was stretched to the utmost. But in accepting this measure it must be remembered that all the concessions made applied to something entirely novel, and not to that great amount of arrears which, as local taxation reformers, they were entitled to. One of the best provisions in the Bill was that by which the local authorities would be allowed to borrow money at 3½ per cent for their improvements. He was glad that was to be retrospective. In sewerage works already £10,000,000 had been expended by the urban authorities of this kingdom, and last year something like £1,200,000 had been so spent. He hoped the Government would extend the power of borrowing money at 3½ per cent to lunatic asylums, for which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman) had so earnestly contended. He entirely agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) as to the payment and control of officers; for he was
1264
sorry to say that every measure passed gave greater power to the central Government in London; but he did not dread a board of doctors half so much as he did an army of sanitary engineers.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had every reason to thank the House for the favourable and friendly consideration they had shown in consenting to go into Committee on this Bill. There were one or two points on which he might be expected to say a few words; and the first was as to consolidation. He had always stated distinctly that it would be a great and important work to consolidate the various Acts; but it did not follow that the moment when they took new powers and constructed new machinery was necessarily the best time for consolidation. He knew it would be folly—a "vaulting ambition" that would "o'erleapitself," if he pretended to introduce a consolidating measure. Events had justified the exercise of prudence and moderation on his part. He had also come to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable at this period of the Session to ask the House to give their assent to this measure in the shape in which it was originally introduced. He, therefore, thought if he reduced the Bill he should make a clean job of it, and relinquish the idea of obtaining new powers and confine himself to that part of the Bill—a highly important part—which constituted new local machinery and distributed the powers and responsibilities under existing statutes among those authorities. That was really the purport of the Bill; it was very simple. It contained 17 or 18 clauses which consolidated the local authorities; and there were other clauses for the conferment of special authority for special objects, such as to alter and unite districts. He had asked the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu), who had now left the House, whether he had not overlooked Clause 23, and the noble Lord candidly admitted that he had. Power was given them to unite districts by provisional orders. He had already stated to the House that he had in preparation a Digest which would enable the local authorities to do their work without difficulty, and when this Bill was passed he should soon take the opportunity of making it public. It was hardly correct to speak of new powers conferred by this Bill; the only new power conferred was

1265
that of compelling local authorities to appoint medical officers of health. It was true the Bill gave urban authorities powers and duties prescribed by the Local Government Act, and dealt similarly with Boards of Guardians in reference to powers and duties under the Nuisances Removal and Sewage Utilization Acts; but it was a mistake to suppose that in the Bill as it stood the word "may" was in any case changed into "shall." It was true that some simplification of the local authorities, and the distribution of existing legislation among the sanitary authorities, would amount to an increased pressure upon them to discharge the duties which legislation laid upon them. And it was right in itself that increased pressure should be brought to bear. As to the construction of the authorities, he would show very shortly the methods by which he had arrived at the propositions which had been placed in this Bill. The House knew that his propositions were the propositions of the Sanitary Commission, and when considering the construction of local authorities it had always to bear in mind that the first question to be asked was—what was the proper unit of administration? Now, he had approached the question in this way—As far as the urban authorities were concerned, although some men might hold the opinion that local government in urban districts was liable to abuse—but all institutions were liable to abuse—yet he did not think that anyone could ask the adoption of a different unit in the urban populations from those natural units of the existing urban local governments. He did not see how it could be argued that a population which had arived at municipal government was unfit for the exercise of sanitary powers. He did not see how anyone could suggest the abolition of those local boards which had been created upon the motion of the urban populations themselves. With reference to rural authorities what Government had done was this—They had found two administrative units, and much confusion from the existence of these two rural authorities. They had found vestries which meant simply the inhabitants of each parish, and they had found an authority under the Sewage Utilization Acts and an authority under the Nuisances Removal Acts. What the Bill did was neither more nor less
1266
than this—to say that the parish was too small a unit, and to transfer from the parish to the Board of Guardians the powers and duties conferred and imposed by the Sewage Utilization Act. Then, the parish being too small, they came to the union, and the more he looked into it the more he had become convinced that it would be unwise to disregard existing burdens and local institutions in the hope of finding some ideal theory as to the distribution of areas into which the country might be ideally divided for sanitary purposes. They had to think not only of the area but also of the machinery, and they adopted the Board of Guardians as the existing authority, and the union as the unit of area, because it was a larger area than the parish. He had also addressed himself to the question whether a larger unit would not be advisable. He was satisfied that the union was the largest practicable unit for sanitary administration. For instance, they were in the habit of talking about sanitary administration as if it depended on the construction of large works—works of sewage and works of water supply. He denied that that was an accurate understanding of the work of sanitary administration in the country. What appeared to him to be an ampler and much more important work was the selection of the sanitary officers, and supervision and inspection for the prevention of sanitary nuisances in every village and hamlet in this country. For this work the Board of Guardians by its constitution was eminently fitted. The work was not work for a county Board, even if a county Board could be constituted immediately, nor was the county a fit unit. He had provided in the Bill for the extension of districts and for the union of districts, so that there were powers under the Bill to constitute watershed authorities, or to constitute for sanitary purposes county Boards. The boundaries of unions and parishes did not absolutely coincide with the boundaries of counties. Before they could create a system of county Boards for sanitary purposes, for other administrative and for other financial purposes—which was a measure for the future, and one that he would be delighted to undertake—it was necessary by some means to harmonise those boundaries, because the smaller authority of the parish or the

1267
union, or any portion of its work, could not possibly be put under the control and under the management of a larger authority, which did not take in the whole of the smaller authority which it had to control and assist. He had looked at that question with every desire to deal with it this Session if possible; and he had come to the conclusion that he could only deal with it by the method in the Bill, by a provisional order relating to each case as it arose, awaiting in the meantime the possibility of a general scheme. He wished to say a word also about the expense. His view of the increase of expenditure which might follow from this measure was this—The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had stated very candidly, as to sewage works, water works, and he might have added gas works, that they were matters of local interest, and furnished no sort of claim on the Imperial Revenue. But he omitted to remark—and the same omission had occurred in the speech of everyone who had followed him in this debate—that after all these were the heavy items of expenditure which had caused the rate per inhabitant in the towns to exceed the rate per inhabitant in the country. When they came to the expenditure common to the towns and country they would find that so far as this Bill was concerned it did not, and would not, impose any additional burdens, except so far as it brought increased moral pressure to bear upon the enforcement and administration of sanitary laws. The expense incurred under the Bill would consist mainly in charges for the salaries of medical officers, inspectors of nuisances, and other officers. As to the power of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, this must be accepted as clear—either that this Bill would not impose any considerable additional burden upon the rural districts, or that if it did, or where it did, the rural districts would have precisely the same privilege of borrowing as would fall to the lot of local government boards in towns. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had made an appeal to him with reference to local government boards in boroughs. His hon. and learned Friend had assumed quite truly that the theory of the Bill was not one of centralization; but its object was to leave, as far as possible,
1268
all the action in the power of the country. The same hon. and learned Gentleman had also referred especially to the clause relating to the appointment of medical officers of health, and had suggested that if local bodies were prepared to pay the salaries of their own officers, they should have the independent power of appointing and dismissing them. He wished to point out to his hon. and learned Friend that the view he advocated was entirely met by the addition he should propose to make to Clause 10. This addition was to the effect that the Local Government Board should have Poor Law powers in the case of officers of the sanitary authority, any portion of whose salaries was paid out of money voted by Parliament. Therefore, when the Committee accepted the addition, the Local Government Board would be empowered to act in partnership, so to speak, with the local authority when the local authority chose to accept Imperial funds, but not in any other case. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had appealed to him also in reference to that clause. He objected to the construction of a great hierarchy throughout the country to whom all sanitary considerations should be handed over, and who, in his opinion, would not be likely to take a common-sense view of affairs. Now, he had no such intention, and it was well known that he had no such intention, for he had had many discussions with medical men on the subject, and had not always agreed with them. He had no intention of committing the whole sanitary administration of this country to medical men. It would not be acceptable to the country, and it would not be acceptable to himself. After all, what were all those matters of sanitary protection and administration which he hoped would be taken advantage of? They were cleanliness and purity; and they did not want medical men to effect that, or to determine the conditions of buildings which every man of common sense knew to be necessary for the health of himself or anybody else. But there were many matters in regard to which we required professional advice. For example, if fever broke out in a village it might be necessary to convince the inhabitants that it was the result of certain causes which they had not before clearly understood. Therefore, there

1269
were abundant reasons why there should be some organization for the appointment of medical officers of health. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to imagine that the medical officers would be appointed for life; but he could assure him this would not be so, for it was most desirable that in the initiatory proceedings under this Bill we should advance tentatively, and not commit the House or the country to life appointments. This measure had been carefully prepared and closely studied by himself and his hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Hibbert), and when it was in Committee he should be quite ready to answer any objections which might be raised against the various clauses.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, before the House proceeds to a division I wish to express my hope that it will consent to go into Committee on this Bill. The merits of this measure are not to be estimated by comparing it with any large and adequate measure of sanitary legislation, consolidating all the existing powers and constructing new ones, which at the commencement of the Session, if the Government had made up their mind to direct their principal energy to the treatment of such a measure, no doubt might have been carried. But the question we have to ask ourselves is this, whether the sanitary legislation of this country will, if this Bill passes, be more efficient than it is at present? That really is the practical question; and I cannot but believe that every candid man—whatever may be his expectations as to the future treatment of the question, or whatever were the hopes in which he may have previously indulged on the subject—must admit that the sanitary condition of this country will be more satisfactory than it is at present if this Bill passes. Now, I think, considering the public requirement of the country on this matter, and the strong convictions of those most competent to guide public opinion on this important question, we should undertake a grave responsibility if, under such circumstances, we did not agree to the passing of this measure. I confess there was one great obstacle to it in the way in which it was introduced. Whatever may have been the remarks made in another sense, I think all must now agree that the measure, as originally proposed, would certainly have led to a further and, perhaps, not an
1270
inconsiderable increase in the local taxation of the country; and after the vote at which the House had arrived in the earlier part of the Session on that subject, there would have been such a glaring inconsistency in acceding to a measure which would increase the local taxation without any arrangement on the part of the Government tending to alleviate that increase, that I myself, strong as are my views as to the absolute importance of this House proceeding with sanitary legislation, should have felt the greatest difficulty in giving my support to the measure of the Government. But the Government have made a proposition which has been considered by those who take a very great interest in the subject—and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for South. Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), who I may say has always in dealing with it shown as much discretion as ability—as being, on the whole, a fair and reasonable proposition. It has removed the great difficulty I just referred to, and therefore I trust the House will assent to the passing of this measure. I have no doubt that, in considering the machinery which we are about to institute, many details will be found fairly liable to criticism, and many suggestions may be made which may improve the proposition of the Government, or which may even remove such of their proposals as the House may deem objectionable; but the present is not an occasion on which we need enter into these details. What the House has now to do is to declare that it will support the sanitary policy of the Government in passing this measure. It is one which is not, in my mind—nor, indeed, is it in the opinion of the Government—adequate to the great subject we shall have ultimately to deal with; but it meets many difficulties that are now encountered; it renders more efficient existing legislation; and it is a preparatory and beneficial step to the large measure which the Government have announced that they will, on the first opportunity, introduce.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Since the Leader of the Opposition has become the supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and tells us that sanitary legislation is almost the only proper function of the House of Commons, I will not attempt to enter at any length into this matter. At the same time, it is due to the exist-

1271
ing authorities who are assumed to have utterly failed in the performance of their duties to state that, as a matter of fact—so far as the Midland Counties, at all events, with which I am connected—there never was a period when greater activity in sanitary improvement prevailed. There is no pest in this country at present—no real occasion of urgency for legislation; and I must be allowed to express my regret that, by a preliminary measure, which we are told this is, these existing local authorities are to be swept completely out of the sphere of their present activity and usefulness. I have not the same feeling against parochial authorities which seems to prevail among modern reformers. My belief is that the parishes are, on the whole, well governed; and I own that I am afflicted with the ancient prejudice—a prejudice which many generations of Englishmen have entertained—that public freedom is best secured by local authority, so subdivided and limited as to area of population and locality that it shall be brought within the command of such a number of the population as can consult with each other and thus effectively act upon the mind of the authority. This seems now to be held to be an ancient prejudice, when we have a proposal made to sweep away the unit of self-government formed by the parish. I do not regard this as so light a matter as some ardent modern reformers appear to think it. It seems to me, then, that this measure arms the Government with a discretionary authority to disturb every limit of existing administration, whilst it really settles nothing. The parish administration, in connection with the public health, is to be no more. The Union authority is to be recognized; but it is to remain in the breast of the central authority, whether even that authority shall continue in force, or some other authority shall not supersede or overflow it. For there is contained in this Bill discretionary power which is to be vested in the central authority further to invade the Union authority, to overflow and to supersede it by what is termed a watershed authority; which again the Bill would establish only provisionally. Therefore, the whole tendency of the Bill is to arm the central authority with power to create local authorities, but only provisionally—although with the dim prospect that here-
1272
after Parliament may, or may not, be asked to define the limits of the discretion to be vested in the central authority, by some other measure than the present. Then comes the proposal with regard to borrowing powers; and how will that work? Let the House suppose that in a Union, in several of the parishes of which some of the parochial authorities had efficiently set in motion the existing machinery, and had met the sanitary wants and requirements of the parish or district. Well, under this Bill, these parishes, which have provided for the necessities of the population within them, will be taxed for the purpose not of improving their own sanitary condition, but of improving the condition of the other parishes in the Union, the inhabitants of which may have neglected their duty. Because, although the Government have been good enough to offer to lend money to the Unions for the purpose of carrying out their sanitary arrangements, the interest upon that money will have to be paid by the whole Union, and the taxation will be levied without the slightest reference to the work which has heretofore been done in individual parishes. As I have said—finding that the Leader of the Opposition is an ardent supporter of the Government in respect of this measure, and of the principles I have endeavoured to describe, if the House divides I shall go through that door, because I do not believe that this hasty and provisional system of dealing with a great question of this kind is necessary, but that it has been entailed by the fact that the Government were determined to effect a vast political change during this Session, and to wear Parliament down to its acceptance. They have thus used up the time of the House; and now, when we have come to the close of the Session, the House is asked to invest the Government with vast discretionary powers, which, according to the showing of their own organ, would not have been necessary if the attention of Parliament had been earlier directed to the consolidation of the law and the division of the country into such districts as might have become permanent for the purposes of sanitary arrangements.
MR. CORRANCEsaid, he almost rose under a sense of self-reproach for delaying the progress of the Bill after so long a debate; but he felt that until he had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentle-

1273
man the President of the Local Government Board he should not have been justified in making any remarks. What had he said? That the Bill was a small Bill; that it did nothing which had not been done before; nothing new, and in this humble guise it now came before the House. He had almost apologized for bringing it forth; and, like a certain lady in one of Captain Marriott's novels, said—"It was only such a little one," by way of excuse. But what had the Bill done to be treated like this? If it really did nothing, it was his opinion that it ought not to pass. But what if it did something most important and material, and that in the worst possible way, and left out all the rest; things that they had been promised upon the faith of the Government this Bill should carry out. He spoke with the greatest possible regret. Well, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had said that this Bill was a Bill simply to effect one point—organization; the whole thing turned upon this, and in this respect the Bill was good or bad. Now, no one pretended to be satisfied with the present organization of the borough authorities; but they took them because it would be difficult to put anything in their place. With respect to the counties it was different, for there they had a fair scope. Now, with respect to the Board of Guardians as an authority over these matters, just see what had been said. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex told them that he had put the question to nearly all the Boards of Guardians he knew, whether they wished to accept such a task, and not one had given consent; but that when it was put to them whether they would like anyone else to expend the rate, they with equal unanimity declared that they would not. Now, he had never heard a more suggestive statement made than that. They did not wish to administer, but simply to control expense; that was precisely the case, and he thought that by an Amendment he should propose in Committee that arrangement could be carried out. He did not wish to enter further into that question yet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had told them that no candid mind could refuse to accept the Bill as it stood, as an improvement upon that which did exist. He
1274
wished the right hon. Gentleman would inform himself more especially upon that point, for he would find that many men of high attainments, of especial knowledge, and who had devoted their lives to this subject, had come to very different conclusions about this. They did not regard this measure in its present form as an advance, but rather the reverse, and he thought that they ought to be heard with respect. He would not say more at that time; but he was glad his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes) was more satisfied than he had been with the financial provision of the Act.
MR. HENLEYfeared that the ratepayers would find little satisfaction in what was about to be done. In the first place, a good many persons would be dismissed from their employment and pensioned, by which means a good deal of money would be swallowed up. As to appointments, he had not much doubt that the local authorities were better judges of the fitness of gentlemen to be appointed to offices than any persons who were in London could be, and he hoped that the local authorities would have a fair share of the patronage, such as it was. The Bill also would buy up and put a stop to all that was being done in connection with certain works. That must be the natural and immediate effect. They were told that certain things were to be done next year, and the consequence would be that all persons who tad to lay out other people's money would pause in order to see what powers would be given to them in the following year. Two of the most important kinds of work in reference to sanitary matters were sewerage and drainage; but the areas for such works would be completely changed, and it would become an immediate matter for consideration whether, instead of these matters being carried out upon a scale upon which they had before been done, the local authorities should not wait and see what powers were to be given by Government. This would be the natural consequence of this measure; because, unless such a course were taken, next year the works carried out might be found worse than useless. As to the Government giving means to obtain money at a low rate, that would, probably, tend to increase the expenditure, and one species of property ought not alone to be saddled with so many bur-

1275
dens as were imposed upon it. It was very difficult to say to what in time these burdens might amount; and in reference to this ground specially he had hoped that Government would have given them something more satisfactory than this measure.
MR. BOURKEwished to call attention to the fact that there was one principle in the Bill that was peculiar and unprecedented, and in reference to which he hoped that there would be some explanation. Power was given to the local boards by provisional orders to repeal local Acts with which they might come in contact. He did not know that ever before power had been given to repeal local Acts in so sweeping a manner. Further, it was a power which he did not think the boards could exercise with safety. In addition, there was authority given to the Board in London to saddle the ratepayers with the payment of any compensation which they chose to bestow in the event of any office being abolished which had existed under these repealed Acts of Parliament.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

[BILL 240.] THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
MR. GOLDSMID, in the absence of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), who was suffering from indisposition, withdrew the hon. Gentleman's Amendment for the recommittal of the Bill, with a view to the omission of Clause 16, which enforced the payment of wages by weight instead of by measure. He (Mr. Goldsmid) regarded the clause as unnecessary and as a mischievous interference between the employer and the employed. Inasmuch, however, as he could not hope to receive a sufficient support at that advanced period of the Session, he should not feel himself justified in pressing his view upon the House.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTgreatly regretted the absence of the hon. Mem-
1276
ber for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) on that occasion. He deprecated some of the provisions of the Bill as tending to the destruction of the principle of self-reliance on the part of the men. If the agricultural labourers—the class which was in the worst condition, and which had no traditions of self-help—could rise in their own defence against their employers, and show themselves capable of helping themselves, it could not for a moment be maintained that labourers in any other trade required Legislative protection. If the House were wise it would restrain itself in future from interference with many great departments in which it had very unwisely meddled. Let any class of the people be accustomed to believe that the House of Commons might be made a machine for their special interest, and it would be no longer possible to look forward to a state of contentment between classes. Such an interference as this would, in his opinion, do much harm to the labourers themselves. Once they recognized this principle of interference, there was no definite line within which they could stop. All these questions arising between labour and capital ought to be left to labour and capital to settle. When they introduced such questions into the House they became matters of politics and sentiment, and he confessed he had not sufficient confidence in themselves as to suppose that they would stand as fair and impartial judges between labour and capital. He would appeal to the great body of working men not to bring these matters to the House of Commons and give up their good old habit of debating them among themselves. He believed if they gained an advantage for the moment, they would lose more afterwards that would counterbalance the temporary benefit. He would also appeal to the House to look well ahead before they entered on a course of which they could not see the end, because when they wished to stop short they might find themselves unable to do so. At present the House had quite enough upon its hands. Let them give protection to those who could not protect themselves—such as children and animals, that could not escape from cruelty; but let them treat the men and women of the country as grown-up and intelligent beings, whose energies they would only depress and limit by such Legislative interference.
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved that the Bill be recommitted with respect to Clauses 11 and 30.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, in respect of Clauses 11 and 30,"—(Mr. Francis Sharp Powell,)—instead thereof.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEprotested against the propositions laid down by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Auberon Herbert), which rested on fallacies which had only to be publicly stated to be exposed. In his opinion, the Bill would confer enormous benefits upon the important class in whose interests it had been framed.
MR. SCOURFIELDagreed to some extent—and that was not often—with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Auberon Herbert). There was a danger of over-legislation, and especially when it was tried on the "there-must-be-something-done" principle. But this was an exceptional case and involved the highest considerations. He wished he could believe that the most of the colliery accidents were attributable to either crime or ignorance, for punishment might cure the one and education the other. He was rather afraid that they were more to be ascribed to carelessness and the want of presence of mind, and for the latter no legislation could compensate.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Auberon Herbert) to pass without a protest. The point at issue was—What were the functions of Government? The hon. Members for Brighton and Nottingham would reduce them to protecting the pockets of the rich against the attacks of the poor. ["No!"] That was the logical result of all their reasoning if the House had nothing to do with such questions as were raised by this Bill. It was one to protect human life, to protect children, and, as respected the disputed weighing clause, to facilitate the administration of justice. If it was not the duty of Government to do anything but protect society against the thief, as Herbert Spencer—to whom the hon. Members were sudden converts—maintained, what would the result be but anarchy plus the policeman? Seeing that there was no
1278
standard measure for coal; that the capacity of corves was a constant source of dispute; and that the miner stood a chance of losing an average of 10 per cent of the result of his labour; and seeing that we insisted upon the use of standard weights in markets and of standard measures in the sale of beer, why should not we say that this particular labour should be estimated by weight? He had told the working men of Yorkshire that he would never be a party to Parliamentary interference with wages or how they should be paid; but all he wished for was to see justice done between man and man. It was running the principle of political economy to an extreme of which its greatest masters would be ashamed to accept the doctrine of the hon. Member for Nottingham.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Gentleman that it was irregular to discuss Clause 16, as he was now doing, when the recommittal of the Bill with regard to other clauses was the question before the House.
MR. MUNDELLAapologized, and, in conclusion, added that the only legitimate interference with freedom of contract had occurred in the Irish Land Bill, and in the Bill for giving bank clerks a holiday. The working man had not asked for such legislation.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill re-committed, in respect of Clauses 11 and 30; considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered.
On Question, "That the Bill be read the third time,"
LORD ELCHOsaid, he saw with regret in The Times of that morning, in the report of a meeting held at Barnsley, a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill were not satisfactory to working miners. The Bill contained nearly everything they had agitated for, and the compromises were agreed to with the sanction of those who represented them; and therefore he was justified in saying that, upon the whole, the miners had every reason to be satisfied with the Bill. One point only was not made perfectly clear by the Bill.

1279
The miners had long agitated in favour of a more effective ocular inspection by Government Inspectors, but they agreed to give this up on the understanding that, in lieu of it, what was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Elliot) should be imported into our legislation—namely, a proposal that a report as to ventilation, &c. should be kept in a certain specific form in every mine. When the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) proposed that the Inspectors should keep a record of the number of mines they inspected, he opposed the Motion because he thought it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, which he maintained was not the principle of ocular inspection. Contrary to the wish of the representatives of the miners, he felt it his duty to vote against that proposal; but he did so in the belief that the provision in the Bill with reference to this report would be carried into effect in the way suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham. However, on examining the Bill more closely he did not think it would do so, as there was no form of the report in the schedule, nor any proviso that a copy of the report should at any stated time be sent to the Inspector. He had privately communicated with the Home Secretary, who said it was not desirable to recommit the Bill in order to insert such a proviso; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would cause the matter to be brought under the notice of the House of Lords.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the noble Lord had referred to a bargain of some sort; but he, at all events, was no party to it.
LORD ELCHOdid not mean to imply that his right hon. Friend had had anything to do with the bargain.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the whole question had been carefully considered in Committee on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), whose proposal was rejected. There were 3,200 mines in the country, and under the operation of this Bill the number would be increased to about 5,000. It was proposed that monthly reports should be sent to the Inspectors. These reports would amount to 60,000 annually, and they would not be of any use whatever, seeing that the books kept at the mines would be open to the Inspectors.
MR. BROGDENsaid, that in consequence of the general wish of the Committee he withdrew his Amendment and the schedule attached to it.
MR. RICHARDcould not allow the Bill to be read a third time without tendering his hearty thanks to the Home Secretary for the ability he had displayed in meeting and overcoming the objections of the coal owners, and in protecting the miners. He expressed a hope that the measure would have the effect of reducing to a minimum accidents in coal mines.
MR. RODENdenied that there had been any undue opposition by the mine owners, and said that he had not supported any Amendment which had not been agreed to by the men in the first instance.
MR. GREENEtook credit for having introduced the subject of ventilation in mines, and the necessity of efficient inspection, five years ago.
Motion agreed, to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

TWEED FISHERIES—RESOLUTION.
MR. TREVELYANrose to call the attention of the House to a Return of Convictions under the Tweed Fishery Acts, and to the proceedings at a meeting of quarter sessions in Roxburghshire in May last; and to move—
"That some of the provisions of the Fishery Acts now in force on the Tweed and its tributaries are oppressive in their operation, and tend by their severity to render the Acts distasteful to the general public opinion of the neighbourhood."
The hon. Member said, that up to within the last 15 years, a certain number of convictions had been obtained under Acts passed in 11 Geo. IV. and 6 Will. IV. But in 1857 was inaugurated a system of special legislation, something resembling that proposed to be extended to England and Wales by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). A body of Commissioners was appointed answering very much to his Board of Conservators: except that it contained no representa-

1281
tive element, but consisted exclusively of proprietors or their personal proxies. At the same time there were ordained a great number of minute regulations against illegal fishing; and the Commissioners were empowered to watch the operation of the Acts, to appoint and pay bailiffs, to prosecute, to receive penalties imposed on offenders, and to levy rates on the value of the fishing for the protection of the river. A Supplementary Act was passed in 1859; and in 1868 clauses of a general Act for Scotland were directed to apply to the Tweed. The combined effect of this successive legislation had now had a fair trial, and had been pronounced to be absolutely intolerable by the population of the district, whose complaints have now found voice through the most influential, the most impartial, and the best informed of all witnesses—the magistrates who have to administer the law. At the Quarter Sessions of Roxburghshire, held in May last, Mr. Ord, of Muirhouselaw, moved that the Justices memorialise the Tweed Commissioners to apply to Parliament for a revision of the Tweed Fishery Acts, on the ground that stringent laws very often failed in accomplishing the object they had in view, and that the Tweed Fisheries Act had failed to a great extent. He stated that during seven years, no fewer than 695 persons had been tried in Roxburghshire alone for contraventions of these Acts, of ages varying from nine to 72 years; the fines imposed amounted to no less than £2,163, and the costs to £408; the time spent in prison by the persons convicted was no less than 6,087 days, or over 16 years. Mr. Ord stated that the population was in a chronic state of irritation and discontent. The result of the deliberations of the Roxburghshire magistrates was that a Committee was appointed to consider and report upon the Acts. Now, a Court of Quarter Sessions was not the place where considerations of sport and the rights of property were likely to be left out of sight; and they might be very sure that when at Quarter Sessions a resolution was passed unanimously in favour of a complete revision of a Game Law, that law must be working very badly indeed. How it worked, what were the nature and the operation of the clauses which were so much objected to, any hon. Member might see for himself who
1282
looked at the Return of convictions under the Tweed Acts. The Act of 1857 allowed the Justices or sheriff to fine a prisoner in a sum not exceeding £2 for every fish taken during the close season. The Act of 1859 established a minimum, and rendered it obligatory to fine at least at the rate of 10 s. a fish, leaving 40 s. as the maximum. The consequences of the change in the law were soon evident. In 1858 the fines under the Act in the county of Selkirk amounted to £4. In 1859 they amounted to £4 2s. 6d. In the year 1865, excluding a large sum in costs, no less than £80 was levied in fines; and in 1867, besides £40 in costs, the fines amounted to £180. That was to say, that in this small county considerably more than £200, or its equivalent in imprisonment, was exacted in one year from the poorest portion of its scanty population. But that was not the worst. In 1868 a general Act was passed, several clauses of which were put in force on the Tweed. Among them was the 33rd clause, which enacted that on the second conviction a penalty of not less than one-half the greatest penalty should be imposed, and that on a third or subsequent offence there should be exacted the greatest amount of penalty mentioned in the Act. The effect of this clause necessarily was to inflict fines which the offenders could not possibly pay; and the jails were filled with youths whom a moderate punishment would have warned back into the paths of industry and good conduct, but whom this extravagance of retribution had forced into a life of crime; while over and above those who were imprisoned or half ruined by fines, no less than 23 persons had absconded, leaving their wives and children to be maintained at the charge of the parish. The long and the short of it was that the magistrates—against their own views of what was just and wise—were obliged to impose fines of an amount impossible to be paid, which, therefore, were virtually sentences of imprisonment. Within the last year, two fines of £98, and two of £38, had been inflicted upon persons of the humblest means, and the country was burdened, at the rate of £40 a-year for every prisoner, with the maintenance of prisoners under a system of legislation the obvious intention of which was to suppress offences by fine, and not by incarceration. [The hon. Member having

1283
examined in detail the numerous offences constituted by the Act, and the severity of the penalties imposed, and narrated some instances of extreme punishment inflicted for very trivial offences, proceeded to say]—And what had been the effect of the Acts? Had poaching diminished? Why, in Roxburghshire, during the first five years covered by the Return, the number of convictions were 217; during the last five years they numbered 431. We might acquiesce in a certain severity of legislation if that severity had the effect of checking crime; but what could be said for repressive measures, which shocked alike the people and the magistrates, when the effect of their operation was to double the crimes against which they were directed? That increase was not due to increased vigilance on the part of the police, for the same system of watching the rivers was in force throughout both these quin-quennial periods; nor to excessive strictness on the part of the magistrates, for the magistrates would interpret these laws in a humane sense if they were capable of such an interpretation. It was due to a principle, the nature and action of which was nowhere better laid down than in the series of speeches which Sir Samuel Romilly made in favour of the mitigation of our criminal law—
"It is not merely by severity," said, or rather quoted, Romilly, "but by exciting in the community a sentiment of disapprobation against any particular act that we can hope to deter offenders from committing it; and although severity may tend to increase the disapprobation when it is in conformity with public sentiment, yet when it is in opposition to such sentiments it may have an opposite tendency."
That the Tweed Acts had such a tendency he had already shown from the evidence of the Bench, and the evidence of the Tweed Commission of 1867 proved the very same thing. It was a striking commentary on this legislation that £2,000 a-year was spent on police for the protection of fishings, the total rental of which (to a great extent artificial) amounted to some £9,000 a-year; and then they were told, in the Reports of Salmon Commissions and the Preambles to Bills, that this was a question not of protecting private sport, but a valuable public branch of industry. Conceive a business which required 22 per cent of the rental to be spent on watching the premises! There was also something to be said about the system under which
1284
the waters were protected. A clause in the General Police Act of 1857 allowed constables to be sworn in, and placed under the charge and direction of the Chief Constable, at the instance and the expense of private individuals. Under this clause a large number of extra constables, paid by the Tweed Commissioners, were embodied in the police of the counties bordering on the river. This arrangement was, to say the least, of dubious financial advantage to the counties; though he was bound to say that in applying for the arrangement there was no reason to suppose that the Commissioners were desirous of saving the funds of the Commission. The only possible advantage to the ratepayers consisted in placing at their disposal more policemen than were required during the summer months; while in the close time, when nights were long and the ordinary patrol duties exceptionally heavy, the attention of the police was diverted to the river. It was like taking a man's coat in winter and compensating him by forcing on him an overcoat in the dog days. But the moral disadvantages of the arrangement were more to be deprecated than the pecuniary, for it associated in the minds of the people the guardians of the peace, and the charge of laws which were generally odious. It made the policeman to be viewed in the light in which the water-bailiff was proverbially looked on in Scotland. Mr. Ord distinctly said before his brother justices that the police were not regarded as they ought to be; the late sheriff and the present sheriff-substitute of Roxburghshire openly condemned the arrangement; and hon. Members who knew what the sheriffs of a Scotch county were, would think twice before they rejected their authority. And what said those who were strongly in favour of these Acts? The Chief Constable of the combined counties of Roxburghshire and Selkirkshire was asked before the House of Lords' Committee whether the employment of the constables on Fishery duties produced unpopularity to the force. "I think it does," he answered, "among the lower orders. I find that the lower orders are unwilling to give information in regard to Tweed offences." Hon. Gentlemen who were accustomed to fish in the sparsely inhabited regions of Norway and the Highlands must reflect that in

1285
the manufacturing counties an enormous percentage of the population belong to the orders which do not sympathise with this legislation.
"Is it not rather hard," asked Earl Minto of the Inspector General of Constabulary, "on the county police and ratepayers of counties, if the Tweed Commissioners employ and pay an insufficient number of men to suppress poaching that they should be held responsible for the suppression of the Tweed offences?—Yes. It is an experiment. Poaching is not put an end to. But the police are doing their duty."
A gratifying reflection; but not an adequate compensation for the manifold drawbacks of a system, the evils of which were none the less grave because they were to a great extent latent below the surface of society. In 1870 the Scotch Salmon Commission sent round a paper of questions, of which one was—"Is the system of protection in your district efficient?" Answers came from 32 districts, in only two of which the Tweed system of police prevailed. It was not too much to say that of all the answers that from the Tweed was the most unfavourable. It was an ominous sign after this evidence to find the Commissioners recommending that the Tweed system should be extended generally; that constables and peace officers should be empowered to search persons whom they might meet in the street or highway; above all, that the clause enforcing half penalty on second conviction, and full penalty on a third conviction, should not only be retained, but should be rendered far more stringent. Which were they to trust? The Commissioners who were absorbed in the details of salmon preservation, or the magistrates who had the charge of the moral welfare of the community? They all knew what Commissioners were; how in their devotion to the subject on which they were perpetually engaged they were liable to lose all sense of the proportion which that subject bore to other interests and other considerations. It was these recommendations, in the teeth of this evidence, that made it doubly essential for hon. Members to hesitate before they carried further legislation founded solely on the Reports of Salmon Commissioners. He had brought forward this Motion on two grounds—first, that Parliament might have an opportunity of ascertaining the effect of past legislation applying to special districts before it extended that legislation to the nation
1286
at large. His second purpose was to ascertain whether at a future time he might venture to ask the House to amend these Acts in such a manner that the people might obey them willingly, and the magistrates might administer them without misgiving; and in this view he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, some of the provisions of the Fishery Acts now in force on the Tweed and its tributaries are oppressive in their operation, and tend by their severity to render the Acts distasteful to the general public opinion of the neighbourhood."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYobserved, that the hon. Member who had so ably brought this question before the House had said that the existing Acts had failed of their object; but, although he had spoken much about the penalties imposed on poor people, it was difficult to gather from him in what point those Acts had failed. Since the Act of 1857 was passed, he understood that the fisheries of the Tweed had very considerably increased, and a much greater quantity of salmon been caught than in former times. Would the hon. Gentleman substitute for the present system the demoralizing one which existed before 1857? The employment of the police in watching the river was a matter on which magistrates differed much; but for himself he thought that, on the whole, if the law was to be maintained, it was advisable that the river should be protected by the police rather than by the water bailiffs, upon whom they could very seldom rely. The hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for an alteration in that respect; but if he had his feelings, he should move in another Session for a Select Committee upon the working of the Tweed Acts.
MR. RIDLEYadmitted that the hon. Member had stated his case with moderation and good faith; but he complained that he should have thought fit to seize that opportunity for making an attack upon the policy of salmon preservation throughout the kingdom. He failed to find in the general Scotch Act any clause so stringent as that contained in the English Act of 1865, which imposed certain penalties for offences under it, and which increased those penalties most severely in proportion to their number.

1287
He did not think that the hon. Gentleman had made out any case of hardship in respect to poaching or the right of search. Surely, if the rivers were to be protected at all it was necessary that those penalties should be inflicted. Now, according to the Returns before them, three-fourths of the fines imposed were paid. He thought that the House should not stultify itself by agreeing to such an abstract Resolution as that proposed.
MR. DILLWYNagreed with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) in thinking that it was a great mistake to have over-stringent penalties, which generally defeated themselves, and he thought it was not wise to have minimum penalties enforced by any law. He maintained that in all those laws, instead of having minimum penalties, a great latitude ought to be allowed to magistrates when dealing with offences.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the whole scope of the argument of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had been directed rather against the general Act, which had been incorporated with the Tweed Acts, than against any provision peculiar to these Acts. The hon. Member had commenced by comparing the Salmon Acts to the Game Laws; but there were no points of similarity between them. The Game Laws protected the game upon a particular estate for the benefit of a private person—the Salmon Acts preserved the salmon during the breeding season, when they were unfit for food, to enable them to return to the sea. Undoubtedly, on the Tweed there had been very lawless proceedings before those Acts were passed, and it was against those Acts that the hon. Gentleman invited the House to concur in this Resolution. Mr. Huntley, Chairman of the Commissioners, and formerly a Member of that House, had written a letter on this subject, strongly confirming the general statement the hon. Gentleman had made. Nearly all the convictions to which the hon. Gentleman had referred took place during the close months. Each salmon was capable of depositing 1,000,000 of eggs, and when the fish returned to the sea they became the property of those who caught them and sold them as food. The policy of these Acts, and of the heavy punishments inflicted for the preservation of salmon, was not immediately for the benefit of the riparian proprietors, but of the public
1288
who bought and consumed the salmon in a healthy state. In comparing the number of convictions under the Act, the hon. Gentleman had not taken into account the differing circumstances of the rivers. The banks of the Tay and the Spey were thinly peopled, those of the Tweed quite the contrary, and therefore poaching was with much more difficulty prevented in the latter river. There was no doubt but that the employment of the police by private individuals was always objectionable; but in this case they were employed to protect the poor fishermen rather than the large proprietors. With regard to the severity of the existing laws, while he admitted they were too severe he thought they should not be so relaxed as to admit of fish being taken in an unwholesome state. Laws which were unduly severe had a tendency to defeat their own object, and he believed that principle applied in the present instance. Under the circumstances he had stated, the hon. Member would no doubt be satisfied with having directed the attention of the House and of the country to the subject.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, his experience in North Wales exactly coincided with that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), whom he wished to thank for the forcible manner in which he had drawn attention to this question.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House on the present occasion, so that he might be left at liberty to introduce next Session a short Bill giving more discretion to the magistrates.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he thought the hon. Member would do well to accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Graham Montgomery), and either bring in a Bill next Session, or move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.
MR. TREVELYAN, in expressing his willingness to withdraw the Motion, said, the general concurrence of hon. Members who had spoken would encourage him to bring a short Bill forward next year, when he should expect the support of both sides of the House as well as the Treasury bench.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

JOINT STOCK BANKS (IRELAND).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DELAHUNTYrose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should promote a Bill through Parliament to suspend the operation of the eighth section of the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 37, so as to enable additional Joint Stock Banks of Issue to be established in Ireland, until such time as the number, capital, and note circulation of such Banks be equal to that of Scotland proportionately to the population of the two kingdoms when said Act was passed in the year 1845."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. DELAHUNTYcontinued. In 1845, Scotland, when first placed under restriction, had 19 Banks of Issue, with a paid-up capital of £12,000,000, and a note circulation of £3,159,000, for a population of 2,500,000. But in Ireland, in the same year, besides the Bank of Ireland, which had lent its money to the Government, and which was of no use in promoting the trade or commerce of the country, there were only five Joint-stock Banks—namely, the National, the Provincial, and three Banks in Belfast. Excluding the latter, which were merely local Banks, the paid-up capital of the National and Provincial was in 1845 under £900,000—an amount which was entirely inadequate to meet the commercial wants of a population which in that year numbered 8,500,000. If Scotland was better off, it was because she had a more abundant circulation and a larger amount of banking facilities than Ireland. As there were many other subjects to be brought forward to-night he would reserve his Motion till next Session; but at the same time, he would ask Her Majesty's Government to give to Ireland the same rights as England had. The reason why Belfast had progressed more than the other parts of Ireland was that she had three Banks, while the other parts of Ireland had only two Banks. He would never rest until Ireland was placed on the same footing as England, and the laws of the two countries were the same. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. PIMseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should promote a Bill through
  1290
  Parliament to suspend the operation of the eighth section of the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 37, so as to enable additional Joint Stock Banks of Issue to be established in Ireland, until such time as the number, capital, and note circulation of such Banks be equal to that of Scotland proportionately to the population of the two kingdoms when said Act was passed in the year 1845."—(Mr. Delahunty.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had founded his argument on a fallacy when he supposed that Banks were the cause of the wealth of nations, and that if enough of Banks were established you increased the capital. It was just the reverse. It was when capital came into a country and sought for investment that Banks were found the most convenient way of distributing that capital, and making it available for the industries of the country. A country had Banks because it was rich. It was not necessarily rich because it had Banks. Then the hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that a country's circulation should be according to its population. That was not so. The circulation was determined by different things, such as the number and variety of transactions of its general internal activity. A small country might have a larger circulation than a greater country whose trade was dormant. The notion on which that Motion was founded—namely, that it was the duty of the Government to increase the paper currency of Ireland till it reached the proportion at which that of Scotland was 30 years ago—was a mistake as to the function of currency; therefore, he had no hesitation in opposing the Motion.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, that after the miserable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was determined to bring forward this subject again next Session, when he would smash him up. Under the circumstances, he would, for the present, ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH SEATS BILL—(Lords).
(Mr. Beresford Hope.)

[BILL 194.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, as Notice had been given of an Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker should

1291
leave the Chair in order that the House might consider this Bill in Committee, he though it expedient to state that the notion in favour of free seats was growing. That notion was not confined to any section in the Church. By the old common law the Church was free to all the parishioners; but the churchwardens had the right of assigning seats according to the requirements of the different parishioners. In the dearth of Church building, proprietary chapels grew up, and, as they were commercial ventures, they had to be kept up somehow, and the only way of maintaining them was by levying pew rents. The Acts of 38 & 39 George III. were accordingly passed on the subject of those seat rents. These Acts were amended in the reign of William IV., and also by the famous Peel Act, passed 26 or 27 years ago. But some of the details of these Acts required that any person who built a new church should vest it in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In order to find a legal freeholder, churches had to be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but they were precluded by musty Acts, passed under a different state of society, from accepting sites given under the condition that the seats should be free and unappropriated for ever. The Marquess of Westminster had been anxious for such a condition in the case of a site given by him near that House, and another munificent layman in that of a site near the Exhibition building; but it was found impracticable, and the churches had to be consecrated without it. The Bill would remedy this anomaly; and Clause 3, which was not necessarily involved in the rest of the measure, would allow churchwardens to put strangers at the commencement of the service into seats which otherwise would be empty.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he was opposed to the 3rd clause of the Bill, which would empower churchwardens at the commencement of the service to put strangers into seats that might have been occupied by the owners if they had not been late. The Bill was meddlesome, needless, and insidious. He denied that the Commissioners could not accept sites on the condition that the seats
1292
should be free, and it was not unlawful, though it was unusual, to put strangers into seats rented and usually occupied by parishioners. It would not conduce to the orderly conduct of the service for seatholders happening to be a few minutes late to find their places occupied by strangers, and there was always a readiness to offer strangers seats which would otherwise be vacant. He objected to the extension of the Bill to existing churches, some of which were supported by pew-rents, and he deprecated a universal system of open seats, with money taken at the doors for maintaining the services. He begged to move that the House should go into Committee upon this Bill on that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,—(Mr. Donald Dalrymple,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. HUNTsuggested that the difficulties pointed out by the hon. Member who had just down might be removed if the Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. B. Hope) would consent to a delay of five minutes after the commencement of the service being accorded to those who possessed pews in a church before their seats were given to other persons.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was willing to accede to the suggestion.
MR. CRAWFORDwished to know what was to be done in churches where there were no churchwardens? It would not be seemly to keep persons waiting with their watches in their hands to see if the time allowed had elapsed.
MR. R. N. FOWLERthought the object of the Bill a laudable one. It was undesirable that people should come late to church; but there ought to be some limit as to the time allowed. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that the seats should be given away after the commencement of the First Lesson, but would not press it if the Committee should be of opinion that five minutes was the proper time.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that almost the only protection a Churchman had was

1293
the seclusion of his own pew. What protection would he have against eccentricities which might be introduced into the Church? If this Bill should be carried, the old-fashioned church-goers would be deprived of the seclusion which they had hitherto enjoyed, and the adhesion to the Church of a large class of the community would be endangered.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he did not agree with those who wished to do away with pew-rents, which he considered a legitimate source of remuneration to the clergy. He did not sympathise with those who wanted to do away with the Protestant character of the Church of England. At the same time, as a churchwarden, he had seen many inconveniences arising from the difficulty of putting persons into seats, and if the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple) would allow the Bill to go into Committee a modification of the clause might be adopted.
MR. ILLINGWORTHregarded that as an attempt to turn the House into a sort of lay Convocation. The Bill, however important it might be to Churchmen, was not one of any Imperial importance; and it stood in the way of legislation of a pressing nature. If its 3rd clause had emanated from a Dissenter, it would have been characterized as a measure of spoliation, as it proposed to lay violent hands on pews which had long been bought and sold.
MR. COLLINSmaintained, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple), that the law of the land did not allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to receive sites for churches in regard to which it was a condition that all the seats should be free. This Bill would remove that difficulty. Under faculties obtained from Bishops, particular pews in parish churches ran either with the person or with the house; but they were not transferable, and were in no sense property. With respect to unoccupied seats, was it not perfectly monstrous that people should assume a dog-in-the-manger position, and neither go to church themselves nor let others go? Were they to have a large staff of clergymen with great endowments, and yet allow persons to assert the right to keep the pews empty during the whole of the service? He hoped the House would go into Committee and modify the Bill if necessary.
MR. HINDE PALMERthought the Bill was a useful one; but he wished to know how the incumbents of churches, all the seats of which were to be free, were to be supported? He thought some provision should be inserted for securing their maintenance to the satisfaction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
DR. BREWERsaid, there was a great demand for the Bill, for there could be no doubt that accommodation for the humbler classes in the Church of England was lamentably deficient.
MR. HIBBERTtrusted the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple) would allow the Bill to go into Committee without a division. As to the 3rd clause, he should prefer to leave churchwardens free to make their own arrangements as to the time at which strangers should be admitted to seats, and he thought it would be better to trust to the influence of public opinion rather than to put stringent rules in an Act of Parliament.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was willing to accept the limit of five minutes which had been suggested, but that would be in effect a restriction upon the discretion of the churchwardens. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer), he believed it was the practice not to consecrate churches until an endowment had been provided.
MR. PELLconsidered the Bill to be imperfectly drawn, and that the termination of the 2nd clause would encourage the Bishop of the diocese to establish a scale of pew-rents. It was possible that a stranger might insist upon occupying an allotted seat, and no provision was made in the Bill for preventing such a difficulty.
MR. CRAUFURDhoped the hon. Member for Bath would press his Amendment to a division, for he had never seen a measure which reflected more discredit on its framers than this. It was monstrous that Parliament should be called upon to legislate as to whether a man should enter his pew five or ten minutes after the commencement of the service, and he hoped the House would not support the Bill. If they were to have free churches let pew-rents be abolished; but this Bill pretended to give with once clause what it took away with another.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN, as one of the Members for Lancashire, wished

1295
to state that there was a strong feeling in the county in favour of freer access to churches than could be obtained at present. He could not support the 3rd clause, but he must vote for going into Committee on the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 46: Majority 43.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Ecclesiastical Commissioners may accept a church site under a grant in which it is declared that pews or seats shall not be let).
MR. D. DALRYMPLE MR. D. DALRYMPLE moved the omission of the proviso permitting pew-rents in certain cases, and with the consent of the persons interested.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out from the word "money," in line 18, to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Donald Dalrymple.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. BERESFORD HOPEaccepted the Amendment.
MR. F. S. POWELLsupported the proviso on the ground that in large towns in the North the people were of an independent spirit, and preferred paying a small sum for seats, and that without such payment it was impossible to maintain some churches.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 93: Majority 51.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (As to unoccupied seats).
MR. CRAWFORD MR. CRAWFORD moved, in line 27, the omission of the words fixing the time when the pews of a church may be filled up by others than the usual occupants—namely, "when the clergyman begins the service," in order to add words at the end of the clause which would leave such filling up to be made "under such arrangement as the incumbents and churchwardens may prescribe for that purpose."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that this clause was beyond the purview of the Bill, which was a Bill sent down from "another place" for the purpose of assigning the conditions upon which certain new churches were to be built. The whole intention of the Bill was prospective up to the 3rd clause; but the 3rd clause entirely departed from the prospective principle, and became retrospective in its operation, and proposed to destroy the rights by usage, by faculty, by payment, and by custom which had existed for centuries in some of the parish churches, and which had been acquired recently by payment by some of the proprietary.
MR. R. N. FOWLERhad an Amendment on the Paper, which he would move at the proper time. He thought it would be much better if the Committee would settle some plan in the Bill which would be of general application, but a reasonable time should be allowed to elapse before the pews were filled up.
MR. COWPER - TEMPLEbelieved that the arrangements as regards seats had never devolved on the incumbent, but had always been left to churchwardens. He, however, thought it would be best to declare that the vacant seats should be filled 10 minutes after the beginning of the service.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHagreed with the remark of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that the clause was beyond the purview of the Bill. If proprietary rights were dealt with, it should be done by a Bill brought in with that view.
MR. BRUCEobserved that this clause formed no part of the original Bill, and had no sort of connection with it. In its present form it would, he believed, inflict great hardship.
MR. A. GUESTthought it would be necessary to define what service was meant, whether morning, afternoon, or evening.
MR. COLLINShoped the clause, as not strictly within the Preamble of the Bill, would be withdrawn. At the same time, he thought the appropriation of seats in some parish churches was a great grievance and scandal.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, which would, in fact, prevent the clause

1297
being put. The clause was not inconsistent with the title, and might be consistent with the Preamble of the Bill.
MR. MONKsaid, that, as a Churchman, he was truly ashamed they should have spent more than an hour in discussing such a question as this.
MR. HUNTrecommended that the clause should not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PELL, with a view to limiting the operation of the clause to the churches named in the Bill, proposed to insert after "all" the word "such."
MR. CRAUFURDappealed to the Chairman whether the clause was consistent with the full title of the Bill?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was quite competent for the Committee to treat the clause as part of the Bill.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, they had better amend the clause, and then consider whether they would accept it. If the word "parish" were inserted, it would make the clause consistent with the title. If the Amendment were rejected, he should move the insertion of the word "parish."
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the drift of the debate was adverse to the clause, which he would sacrifice rather than risk the Bill; but he would prefer to retain the clause and to make it to apply to "all ancient parish churches."
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the word "parish" was about the worst that could be used.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, it would require an archæologist to determine what was an ancient parish church.
Amendment and Clause negatived.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
(Mr. Andrew Johnston, Colonel Tomline, Mr. Brown.)

[BILL 247.] CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Clause 2 (Season during which wild fowl shall not be killed).
MR. STAPLETON MR. STAPLETON moved to add to the clause a proviso that every summons
1298
issued under the Act should specify the character of wild bird in respect of which the alleged offence had been committed.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. MONK MR. MONK moved the insertion of the word "skylark" in the schedule. That delightful song-bird was regarded as game in France and other foreign countries, and protected during the breeding season.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, in the Schedule, after the word "siskin," to insert the word "skylark."—(Mr. Monk.)
MR. A. JOHNSTONopposed the Motion. The schedule had been carefully considered by Gentlemen who thoroughly understood the subject, and their opinion was that the skylark should be excluded from the schedule.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLE, though fond of larks, trusted the House would reject the Amendment.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, there had been a kind of compromise among the Members of the Committee, who found it impossible to admit into the schedule birds of a doubtful character. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Question, "That the word 'skylark' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS ARRANGEMENTS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to confirm a certain Provisional Order made under an Act of the fifteenth year of Her present Majesty, to facilitate arrangements for the relief of Turnpike Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 256.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* (217); Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (218); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* (220); Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*; Mines (Coal) Regulation* (224); Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Victoria Park* (227).
Second Reading—Summary Jurisdiction* (200).
Report of Select Committee—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102–215–216).
Report—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102–215–216); Inclosure Law Amendment (204–221); Education (Scotland) (210–222); Registration of Births and Deaths* (179–223).
Third Reading—Court of Chancery (Funds)* (205); Treaty of Washington* (191); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (184), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
  ARGUMENT.
  Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva 15th June 1872: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.—North America No. 12. (1872).
INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (Nos.204–221.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 (Allotments for recreation ground and field garden out of common).
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the provision by which, in the case of every inclosure, there should be an allotment of not less than one-tenth of the whole extent of the common for the purpose of recreation grounds and field gardens. Such a provision ought not to be assented to. Were the lords of the soil and the commoners to be told that they must not have an inclosure, except on the condition of giving up one-tenth of the land? That was a new principle.
THE EARL OF MORLEYdenied that the principle was new. Under the Act of 1845 the Inclosure Commissioners had power to make allotments for field gardens and recreation grounds.
LORD REDESDALEcontended that the principle was new, because the word "shall" was now proposed to be substituted for "may." In some commons there were persons who had a just claim to have such allotments made, and it was therefore necessary that the Commissioners should have power to award them; but where no one had any such right, to make the allotment compulsory was an invasion of property.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the thing was wrong in principle, it was wrong whether done directly by an Act of Parliament or indirectly through Commissioners. By the Bill now before their Lordships nothing more was proposed but that which the Act of 1845 gave the Commissioners a discretion to do. There was no invasion of property in the case.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the proposition for the allotment of one-tenth or 50 acres as a minimum, when the common exceeded 500 acres, was carried in the Committee of the House of Commons by the casting vote of the Chairman, and could not be called the opinion of the House. There was a recommendation also that the extent and peculiar nature of each kind of private rights should be taken into account when such an allotment was being made, which showed that a minimum could not be intended to be absolutely enforced. In some places there were no people to enjoy recreation grounds. He knew of some places inclosed under the present law where a small allotment had been made for recreation, which was now waste, because no one used or wished to use it; and such places would hereafter be found where one-tenth of the common would under this scheme be wasted. The theorists would not look at existing facts; but it was the duty of this House not to overlook them. With the view of securing that not more than one-tenth or 50 acres should in any case be allotted, he begged to move the omission of the word "less," in order that the word "more" might be inserted in its stead.
THE EARL OF MORLEYhoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted, it would be impossible to allot for the purposes of field gardens and recreation grounds more than one-tenth of the whole extent, or 50 acres, whatever the size of the inclosure, and the minimum regulation would be cut out of the Bill. That would defeat completely the objects contemplated by the Bill—namely, to afford recreation ground in accordance with the population in the neighbourhood of the inclosure. The Commissioners were to have regard to all the circumstances which ought to be considered in making an allotment. True, the allotment of a minimum of one-tenth in some cases and of at least 50 acres in all others was compulsory, because the justification of this Bill was, that in the opinion of the country and of the House of Commons, the Commissioners had not exercised their discretion as to allotment in a sufficiently liberal manner, the percentage of public allotment for field gardens and recreation grounds having been only 1 per cent of the whole of the inclosed

1219
land. So strongly had the Committee of 1869 felt on the subject, that they recommended to Parliament that no further inclosures should be allowed until a principle should be established upon which public allotments should in every case be set out. The principle of this Bill was to lay down a minimum and not a maximum. He trusted their Lordships would not pass this Amendment, which was contrary to public opinion, and to the opinion of the House of Commons.
LORD ORMATHWAITEthought it was going too far to assume that the opinion of the country and of the House of Commons was in favour of this Bill, merely because the Committee of the House of Commons had made certain recommendations which had not yet been acted upon by that House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to the fallacy that whenever Parliament was asked to remove any small impediment which stood between individuals and their rights, Parliament was entitled to levy black mail on the persons who came to it, requesting the necessary facility. What Parliament had to do was to give effect to existing rights and remove impediments, and not follow the example of the ancient Robbers of the Rhine, who levied toll on all who passed under their castles. Such conduct was hardly worthy of the honesty which Parliament was bound to profess and act on. The next fallacy to which he objected was that involved in the sentiment to which noble Lords opposite were so fond of referring—that "public opinion" was in favour of the measure. Now what did "public opinion" mean in such a case? A few articles in newspapers and a few speeches from crotchety orators. It was a favourite resource of the Bench opposite to threaten their Lordships with an autumn agitation; but they could scarcely be threatened with an autumn agitation about such a Bill as this. He did not suppose that the cry for the abolition of the House of Lords could be revived on this Inclosure Bill. Those references to "public opinion" were not very wise. There was a small, but he admitted, noisy party who thought their opinion ought always to prevail with their Lordships; but what their Lordships' House had in all cases to do was to endeavour to ascertain the right course, and carry it out without regard to what might be said of
1220
them. In the case under consideration he thought a discretion ought to be left to the Commissioners, and that the Bill ought not to lay down so rigid a rule as it did in respect of the space to be allotted for field gardens and recreation grounds.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not agree with the noble Marquess in thinking there were two fallacies in the arguments adduced in favour of this clause; but he hoped the noble Marquess would not be angry with him, if he said that he had made use of two fallacies in answering those arguments. The first fallacy assumed by the noble Marquess was, that whenever anyone came to Parliament for permission to exercise his rights, Parliament was entitled to levy "black mail" on that person; but the noble Marquess had fallen into an error on that point. This was not a question of the exercise of rights. If the lord of the manor possessed those rights which the noble Marquess supposed him to possess, he would have nothing to do but exercise them, and he need not come to Parliament. Nothing could be more certain than that the lord of the manor and the two-thirds of the commoners would not have had the power of making an inclosure but for the Act of 1845. When confiscation was spoken of with reference to this Bill, he would ask whether the Act of 1845, which gave the lord of the manor and two-thirds of the commoners the right to inclose a part against the will of the remaining one-third of the commoners was confiscation? He did not believe it was, nor did he believe this Bill was confiscation; but certainly the term would be quite as applicable to the Act of 1845 as to this Bill. He held that if persons who had not a right came to Parliament to have a right conferred upon them, Parliament, acting in the public interest, had a right to annex conditions to the granting of the right without exposing itself to the charge of levying black mail. The second fallacy assumed by the noble Marquess was that the "public opinion" spoken of in this case was that of a few newspaper articles and a few crotchet-mongers. A Committee of the House of Commons had recommended that no further inclosure should be allowed until the law was altered. Was not that an expression of public opinion? He thought the opinion of the House of Commons might be quoted as that of the country. His

1221
noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) had quoted it as against the existing law, but he had not claimed the sanction of the House of Commons for this Bill, because it had not been before the House of Commons yet. This Bill was not one of confiscation; it was an "enabling Bill," because it enabled the lords and the commoners to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they were now involved.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought that before their Lordships went further with this Bill, the Government ought to tell them what were its chances in "another place." From a statement which Mr. Gladstone was reported to have made last night, it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as doubtful whether this Bill could be proceeded with in the present Session.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not the words of his right hon. Friend before him, but he believed Mr. Gladstone had mentioned the Bill as one which the Government were anxious to have passed.
LORD REDESDALEmaintained that the Bill would inflict great injustice, if this question were not left to the discretion of the Commissioners, as the circumstances in one case might differ widely from those in another.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, the public had at least quasi rights for recreation and other purposes, and if they were taken away, were fairly entitled to compensation in the shape of recreation grounds for the inclosure of open spaces of which they had had the use.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that nothing could be more absurd than to lay down that a certain extent of recreation ground must be allotted. Regard ought to be had to the circumstances of the locality. There had been a great outcry in some places against any invasion of the public right to use commons for recreation and other enjoyment, when the area was far greater than was required for the purpose—as take the case of the New Forest.
On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 67; Not-Contents 60: Majority 7.
THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved to insert after Clause 5 the following clause;—
1222
"Where the commissioners receive such application and undertaking as hereinafter mentioned, they may, in their Provisional Order relating to any land proposed to be inclosed, specify that one of the terms and conditions of the inclosure thereof is the appropriation, in addition to the recreation ground required by this Act to be allotted, of paths or rides or drives for the exercise and recreation of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The provisions of the General Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1872, relating to allotments for recreation grounds (including those relating to the vesting of the soil in any private person with his consent), shall extend to any allotment made under this section; and the soil therein, if not vested in any private person, may be vested in the churchwardens and overseers, local authority, or other trustees.
"An application for the purpose of this section may be made by the local authority of any town or the vestry of any parish in, or in the neighbourhood of, which the land proposed to be inclosed is situate, or by any private person or persons being occupiers or owners of land in the neighbourhood of the land proposed to be inclosed.
"Such application shall be accompanied by an undertaking by the applicants to maintain any path, ride, or drive which may be allotted in pursuance of such application, and any local authority and vestry may give such undertaking. The Provisional Order which provides for the allotment of any path, ride, or drive, shall specify the said application and undertaking, and such undertaking shall, when such Provisional Order is confirmed by Parliament, have effect as if it were enacted by Parliament.
"Where the commissioners are satisfied that the rents received from the field gardens allotted in pursuance of any Provisional Order will be sufficient to maintain any path, ride, or drive which may be allotted in pursuance of that Order, they may act under this section without requiring any such undertaking as aforesaid."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, this was an extraordinary proposition, for it amounted to no less than this—that paths, rides, and drives for the wealthy should be provided by the lord of the manor and the commoners. After such a proposition he was only astonished at the moderation of the Government. He only wondered that they did not require the lord of the manor and the commoners to contribute a large sum to the Consolidated Fund by way of compensation for inclosure.
LORD REDESDALEmost distinctly objected to the portion of this clause which, among the parties who might make application for an allotment for paths, rides, and drives, included "any private person or persons being occupiers or owners of land in the neighbourhood of the land proposed to be inclosed." He moved the omission of those words.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, their Lordships might consent to strain the rights

1223
of property when the question was one of providing field gardens and recreation grounds for the humbler classes; but to strain them in order to provide rides and drives for the wealthier classes would throw ridicule on the whole thing.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as roads were already allotted, he did not see anything absurd in going a step further and allotting rides and drives. A clause containing provision for such allotment was withdrawn when the Bill was in Committee, because in that clause no provision was made for the maintenance of the rides and drives. The clause now provided that the applicants for such allotment must give an undertaking for the maintenance of rides and drives, except in cases where the Commissioners were satisfied that the rents received from field gardens would be sufficient for their maintenance.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that under the clause a person who took a house for six weeks in the neighbourhood of the inclosure might apply for an allotment for rides and drives.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But he must undertake their maintenance.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: He may undertake, but where is the guarantee?
EARL GRANVILLE: The Commissioners are to be "satisfied" of that.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 67: Majority 2.
Words struck out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 (Definition of suburban common).
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit the word "boundaries," in order to insert the words "town-hall, post-office, or parish church, as the Commissioners may in each case appoint." By taking either of those places as the point of measurement, substantial justice would be done, without in any way interfering with the object for which the Bill was proposed.
THE EARL OF MORLEYadmitted that there were difficulties in the case, but
1224
believed that the Amendment of the noble Lord would not diminish them.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 221.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)

(NOS. 210–222.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Further Amendments made.
Clause 15 (First election of school boards).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved at end of clause to insert a Proviso—
"That no teacher of a public school in any parish or burgh shall be eligible as a member of a school board under this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 (Public schools).
LORD COLONSAY LORD COLONSAY moved to insert at the end of clause—
("But nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the schoolmasters in existing parish schools which, under the operations of this Act, may be deemed to be burgh schools, or their successors in office, to participate in the benefits of any bequest for behoof of the schoolmasters of parochial schools, or the powers, rights, and privileges of the trustees or administrators of any such bequests").
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 (Consents to transference).
LORD COLONSAYsaid, that the clause proposed that the consent of any number of persons having the administration of the trusts in which any school is held to the transference of such school to a school board under this Act should be given "by a majority sufficient for any ordinary act of trust management." He proposed to strike out these words and substitute—
("By a majority of not less than three-fourths having the administration of such trusts present at a meeting duly summoned for such purpose").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the proposal, on the ground that the provisions contained in the Bill—which would in some instances be more, and in none less stringent than those in operation—would meet all the requirements of the case.
LORD COLONSAYsaid, that as the Bill proposed to make extraordinary enactments, extraordinary provisions

1225
ought to be made in order to prevent a complete reversal of the existing state of things.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it was not only the right, but the duty of Parliament to take such steps as would prevent the possibility of breaches of trust being committed.
After some discussion "two-thirds" were substituted for "three-fourths," and the Amendment, thus amended, was agreed to.
Clause 64 (Removal of principal teachers).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the proposals of the Bill with regard to charges of unfitness or incompetency against school teachers was not satisfactory, and proposed to insert in the clause—
("And within ten days after receiving the copy of such report the teacher shall be entitled to make application to the Board of Education to allow him to be heard before the said board in defence, and the board shall be thereafter entitled to allow such further inquiry as they may think right: Provided also, that if they shall find that the incompetency, unfitness, or inefficiency of the teacher arises from infirmity or old age, or is not occasioned by his own fault, he shall be entitled, in the case of teachers of parish schools in office at the passing of this Act, to a retiring allowance, the amount whereof shall not be less than two third parts of the amount of the salary pertaining to said office at the date of such judgment, and shall not exceed the gross amount of such salary, which retiring allowance shall be payable in all respects in like manner with the salary of the schoolmaster; and in the case of other teachers, to a retiring allowance of such amount as the school board shall determine").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the provision contained at the end of Clause 65 would save the rights of teachers under the existing law.
After short conversation, Amendment negatived.
Clause 66 (Higher class public schools.—Burgh).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Duke had admitted on behalf of the Government that it was highly important to maintain the high standard of education which had obtained in Scotland up to the present time. This certainly could not be accomplished if the standard of examination for teachers were lowered, and he therefore would move to omit, page 25, line 9, from ("A") to ("same") in line 16, and insert—
1226
("Board of examiners of higher class public schools, and for fixing and ascertaining the qualifications of candidates for the office of teacher therein shall be constituted as follows: one member to be appointed by the university court of each university in Scotland, two to be appointed by the Scotch Education Department, and one to be appointed by the Educational Institute of Scotland, the first appointments to be made within three months after the passing of this Act, and the examiners appointed to hold office for three years, and to be capable of re-election; such board of examiners shall possess all the powers and discharge all the duties with reference to certificates of competency for higher class public schools, which are by sections 61, 62, and 63, of this Act vested in the Scotch Education Department, and the examiners appointed by the said department with reference to certificates of competency for other public schools, and every candidate for a certificate under this section shall pay such fee as may be determined from time to time by the Scotch Education Department").
The Bill provided that in the case of the higher class schools the school boards should fix the standard of qualification for the teachers, and should appoint Examiners to conduct an inquiry into their competency, but did not give the same powers to the boards of the local schools. He should move another Amendment, calculated, as he thought, to ensure that the qualifications of the masters should be ascertained by a competent Board of Examiners—namely, in page 26, line 16, leave out from ("by") to end of sub-section and insert—
("The said board of examiners, or any of their number appointed by them, and the examiners shall make a report of the examination of such school to the school board having the management thereof; and the expenses of all examinations under this section, including such remuneration to each examiner as shall be fixed by the Scotch Education Department, shall be defrayed out of the fees paid by candidates as aforesaid, together with such further sum from the school fund of the parish or burgh in which each such school is situated, as may be determined by the Scotch Education Department").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had no objection to the general object of the noble Duke's proposals, but he objected to the way in which he proposed to carry them out. He thought that it indicated great distrust in the constituents of the school boards, upon whom would devolve the duty of carrying out the provisions of the Bill when it had become law. The existing higher class schools were for the most part under the management of the town councils, which had been elected by the ratepayers, and as their mode of management had not been open to objection—the Edinburgh High

1227
School, which which had acquired so great a reputation, having been from time immemorial under the management of the Town Council—he did not see why there was any reason to distrust the school boards, which would be under the Bill similarly constituted. It should be remembered that the Privy Council gave no assistance to the high schools. He did not know that the Educational Institute of Scotland—one of the bodies to whom the noble Duke proposed to commit the nomination of one of the Examiners—was a body that commanded any great amount of respect. Not the least of his objections to the proposal of the noble Duke was, that the cost of examinations should be defrayed by the candidates who offered themselves for examination as schoolmasters.
LORD KINNAIRDthought the appointment of Examiners by town councils was to be deprecated, because the natural tendency of such bodies was to procure the cheapest rather than the most efficient teachers; but, at the same time, he did not think that the proposals of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would produce such a Board of Examiners as was required. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEheld that these schools being endowed schools, it was both the right and the duty of Parliament to make them as efficient as possible. The principle of the Amendment—namely, that there should be an independent examination both of teachers and of schools—was a good one. It ought not to be in the power of any school board, desiring to "make things pleasant," to appoint an Examiner who would say that everything was going on satisfactorily. That under the existing system, the Scotch schoolmasters were, as a body, competent and able men was rather in spite of than in consequence of the manner in which they were appointed.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreminded the noble Duke opposite that, unless he was misinformed, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer exacted from the candidates attending the competitive examinations for the Civil Service certain fees, which went towards paying the expenses of the examinations. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would not refuse to follow the example set him by that high authority.
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Oontents 38: Majority 4.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in rising to move an Amendment forbidding the teaching in any school of any catechism or any religious formulary distinctive of any particular denomination, said:—My Lords, on Friday week, in the course of his speech on the second reading of the Bill, the noble Duke who introduced it expressed himself as strongly opposed to secular education. I shall not follow the noble Duke into argument on that topic. I confess I have always thought that in theory the doctrine of the division of labour holds good with regard to instruction, and that in practice a system which has had so large a share in the education of America and Canada cannot be considered as otherwise than a success. But the noble Duke almost challenged your Lordships to bring forward an Amendment with the view of reconciling the Scotch and English Act as regards catechisms. Under such a challenge I could not conscientiously remain silent; and though I fear I shall not receive the support of many of your Lordships, I will briefly, at this critical hour of the evening, explain the reasons which induce me to bring forward my Amendment. In the first place, my Lords, we are told that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. That, indeed, would be a grave objection, if it were founded on fact; but, my Lords, I deny that it is founded on fact, and, even admitting the religious difficulty to be comparatively small, I assert that that is owing to conditions which will cease to operate when you have passed this Act. It is true, so far, that the religious difficulty in Scotland is smaller than that in England or in Ireland. But it is not of the entirely microscopic character which some have thought fit to describe it. One-seventh of the population of Scotland have not merely no connection with, but an antagonism to, Presbyterianism. But, again, there are, as the noble Duke knows perfectly well, Presbyterians and Presbyterians. The United Presbyterians form the third largest religious Body in Scotland. What has been the course taken with regard to education by the United Presbyterians? That Body has made an annual declara-

1229
tion since 1847—for 25 years—for the complete separation of secular and religious education. They consider, rightly, or wrongly, that the State has nothing whatever to do with religious education, which they regard as the prerogative of the parent and the Church. So it is not perfectly accurate to represent the whole of Scotland as ready to accept the Shorter Catechism, as a part of school education. But let us take the experience of qualified persons. Who is the man of all Scotland whom we should choose, perhaps, as most qualified to speak with authority on this subject? We should all probably say, Dr. Lyon Playfair. What does he say—
"Practically, we ought to have no difficulties of religion to contend with; but actually there is at present much religious excitement in Scotland about this Bill. I cannot deny that chiefly on account of the ecclesiastical obstacles which have been put in the way of educational progress since 1854, there is a rapidly growing desire among the people for separating secular and religious instruction in the school, with the view of confiding the latter to the Churches."
That seems to me to be an opinion, the force and weight and authority of which it is impossible to deny; and I think that the noble Duke will find it difficult to prove that it is mathematically correct to continue to divide the people of Scotland into the two simple classes of Shorter Catechumens and Shorter Catechists. But I believe that even if the religious difficulty be really smaller in Scotland than in England, there is a cause for this which will cease to operate after the passing of this Act. For 25 years the religious difficulty has become more and more active and pressing in the United Kingdom. For 25, years the United Presbyterian Synod has sounded the key-note of secular education; and for 25 years you have been dangling an Education Bill before the people of Scotland. During those years there has been a general consent to await the result of your decisions, and, meanwhile, at any cost, to procure the best possible education for the children; but that has always been considered as a provisional state of things. A Scotch parent will stick at little to obtain the necessary instruction for his children. He may dislike being compelled to have them taught dogmatic religion with the three R's; but he has known that there would be no three R's procurable otherwise. It may be licking
1230
honey off thorns; but, then, no honey can be got in any other way. He has always been hoping for the time when Parliament should settle this question, and he no longer be compelled to sue for education at the door of another Church. But when you produce your settlement, and he sees it is no settlement, will there be no religious difficulty then? I know that Roman Catholic children have sat through the Shorter Catechism; but that has been harder for them than total exclusion. For not merely have they been forced, in order to secure secular education, to learn the Shorter Catechism—which is difficult—but to remain good Catholics, they have had to do what is perhaps more difficult—to unlearn the Shorter Catechism. Yet, because people have done all this—in view of the approaching settlement of the question—rather than not learn to read, write, and reckon, it is said that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. He would be a bold man who would predict that such a settlement as this will last for 20 years; nor do I think you can easily disregard the names that appear on the rolls of that association, from whom I had the honour the other night to present a Petition in favour of this Amendment. It will be, I confess, a very extraordinary thing to me if in face of these facts, and these synodal declarations, and these distinguished and influential persons who are opposed to your system, and the English Education Act itself staring you in the face, this Bill shall be considered a settlement of the question. But I will bring forward another argument. You must remember that hitherto rates for education have been paid by the heritors alone; but they are now to fall on the whole body of ratepayers. Now, I suppose we all know the searching nature of rates? We have all had our little experience of them. Noble Lords who live south of the Tweed need only think of church rates, and noble Lords north of the Tweed of the annuity tax. Do you not suppose that these persons who are thus to acquire the privilege of paying a rate will look out with uncommon sharpness to what they are paying for? Will not this rate, judging from experience, very likely discover diversities of creed and niceties of conscience even where they have not hitherto shown themselves? This Bill will indeed form an epoch in the dismal

1231
history of rates if it be not so. You are about deliberately to put into the hands of that large class of persons who will avail themselves of any means of defence against a rate, and of those to whom the rate is a considerable burden—the tremendous weapon of sectarian difference and conscientious difficulty. And you think they will not use it? But then, my Lords, such a clause as this would lead to what is broadly and coarsely termed Godless education. That is an accusation to which I attach very little importance. So far from this being the case I should be content to rest my advocacy of this Amendment on the interests of religious teaching; for how will this Bill teach religion? You are to get some odd moments during the day; you are to get the rinçures—the rinsings—of secular education; for you cannot expect that the schoolmaster will devote more pains to fit himself for the religious half-hour than for the secular four hours. But even if that be not his wish, the school board elected by the ratepayers will probably take good care that it is so. Then what will the teacher teach at these spare moments? It is perfectly clear—the Shorter Catechism. It is the Shorter Catechism to which the people of Scotland, as we are told, cling; it is in the Shorter Catechism that instruction will be given at these odd times to children between 5 and 13. But now as to instruction in this Shorter Catechism—and instruction given, mind, as a recognized part of the school teaching, and not in the hole-and-corner manner proposed by the Bill—the language of the Commissioners of 1867 is clear and precise. As long as they kept to the beaten track of the Catechism questions, the answers were delightfully clear and precise; but the moment they deviated from that path in the least, they were met with blank looks and appalling ignorance. But is this wonderful? Have your Lordships ever read the Shorter Catechism? It is described on its cover as being designed for the use of those of "weaker capacity." I open it at hap-hazard, and find this formidable question—
"What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, or sanctification?"
If that is a question suitable for the weaker capacities of Scotland, I feel moved to take the greatest pride in the
1232
stronger intellects of my native country. But seriously, I ask you, my Lords, which is the true friend to religious education, the man who would instruct a child in such matters as these at odd moments, or he who would relegate such awful and intricate subjects to separate and careful instruction? I contend that religious instruction to be efficient should be at least as full, as definite, and as careful as any other department of education. Teaching religion by making the child commit to memory the Shorter Catechism is like teaching Greek without a grammar—or the man who read Euclid through like a novel, in order to improve his reasoning powers. But, my Lords, while we are talking of the Shorter Catechism, I may fairly avow that what I have read in the Report submitted by the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Commission in 1867 would make me doubtful on other grounds as to the wisdom of teaching the Shorter Catechism to these young children. Take the following extract from the Report:—
"All the ministers acknowledged that the children were not expected to understand the answers; but they held that the answers being taught in childhood clung to the people's memories as they grew up, and were valuable, not only as intellectual, but as moral discipline."
That is the sole apology. It may, indeed, be moral discipline to learn that by rote which you cannot understand, but it is assuredly not intellectual discipline—
"One minister considered the Catechism well fitted for improving the memories of the young."
This is an advantage shared by Gray's Memoria Technica, and other works which do not pretend to be instruments of religious education.
"Another minister assured us that in his communion classes he always knew by the intelligence of the young people whether they had learned their Catechism or not."
Naturally, a child who can commit a pamphlet to memory of which he does not understand a word would be, to say the least, intelligent.
"And a third minister maintained that the traditional stability of the Scotch character arose out of their instruction in the Shorter Catechism."
This reason requires no comment, but it is certainly a startling illustration of cause and effect.
"Teachers and Inspectors differ in their views as to whether it should be given up. The majority, however, think it should be retained; but

1233
some would be glad to see it both simplified and modified—simplified to suit the capacities of the children"—in which case it would cease to be the Shorter Catechism—"and modified to meet with the approval of every Protestant."
In which case I need hardly say it would be, if not unique, at any rate one of the most remarkable creeds extant. Thus, then, I contend that the Shorter Catechism will not be a benefit as proposed to be taught, and that even as taught hitherto, it has not been an efficient means of education. Indeed, it might almost be said after reading the Report that from the mouths of its apologists has proceeded its condemnation as a mere ordinary subject of education. But, my Lords, see again how this Act will work without such a clause as the English Education Act contains. Suppose you have a school board in which you have a bare majority of Established Churchmen. The Established Church do not form 50 per cent of the population of Scotland; they are, however, more numerous than any other denomination. They will probably, as a rule, have majorities in the school board, and probably also, as a rule, bare majorities. Will not those bare majorities be apt to choose their schoolmaster not for his efficiency or his general ability, but because he will be a fair teacher of secular subjects and an excellent exponent of denominational religion? So that by this proviso you will be meting out short measure to the Roman Catholic or United Presbyterian child, in order to furnish excellent denominational education to the bantling of the Establishment. But, again, take the case of the teachers. Take a candidate for a school mastership. Will he not have cause to complain if, being the best secular candidate—that is, the best public teacher for the whole parish, another is preferred before him on account of superior knowledge of the Shorter Catechism? Consider, again. The schoolmaster is appointed by the school board. At the end of three years, the school board, with the bare majority of the Establishment, goes out, having made itself unpopular as having imposed a rate. It is succeeded by an opposition board, whose first care will be to get rid of its predecessor's nominee. That will secure a pleasing variety in your educational system; but I submit that such variety is hardly desirable. Nay, the reaction
1234
caused may do the very thing you wish to avoid, and drive religion altogether from the schools. But, then, let us never forget that we are fortunate enough to have a Preamble—a Preamble, historical and precise in its language, which was passed the other night with considerable pomp and circumstance. That Preamble we know is the efficient instrument which secures to us adequate religious instruction. I happen to know this, because I have been told so by persons for whose authority I have great respect. But, to tell the truth, I did not understand that Preamble at the time, and as after subsequent reflection, I understand it still less, I will take the liberty of asking a question or two. I will ask the most rev. Prelate who inaugurated the debate on Friday night by speaking with a double authority—firstly, as Prelate, and secondly as a Scotchman of whom all Scotchmen are proud, what security there is in this Bill—with its religious Preamble—for the religious teaching of that branch of the English communion which exists in Scotland? It is not, indeed, very numerous, but it is not soulless, and it will pay the rate. I will take the liberty of asking the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, what security they see for the religious teaching of the members of their Church in this Bill—with its religious Preamble? Yet they form one-tenth of the population of Scotland. How long will this Bill, which provides that these sections of the community shall pay for teaching to which they are completely opposed, be a settlement of the question? Will they not have besides to provide religious instruction by their own voluntary exertions? And yet if you compel them to do so, what hardship is there in compelling others to do so? There will, indeed, be no hardship in making others do so, but there will be a hardship in compelling these to pay for religious instruction of which they entirely disapprove. But, my Lords, having said so much on the question of fact, and of justice, and of effect, let me say a final word as regards expediency. The noble Duke who introduced this Bill acknowledged at the commencement of his eloquent speech the strides which public opinion had made as regards education in the last three years. He illustrated that by stating the impossibility

1235
of the Act of 1870 now finding acceptance with that public opinion. He acknowledged towards the end of his speech the strides that public opinion has made towards the separation of secular and religious instruction, and he therefore begged your Lordships to accept the present Bill. But did he not see the logical result of his arguments? If public opinion has made these strides, why does he make this Bill less liberal and more ecclesiastical than the Bill of 1870? But, on the other hand, if public opinion is making this progress in the direction of separating secular and religious instruction, do you suppose that you can dam the progress of public opinion by a clause or a time table? A mole hill has more chance of resisting a garden roller. And this is what is called a settlement of the question! And, my Lords, remember that the proposition I am making is no new one. It is simply and solely the second section of the 14th clause of the English law of education passed the year before last. The burden of proof does not, I contend, lie with me as to its adoption, but with the noble Duke as to its rejection. These then are the reasons for which I ask your acceptance of this Amendment. Ipropose it in no fanatical spirit. If I believed that its adoption would retard for a single day the benefits which I believe this Bill will confer upon Scotland, I would certainly not ask you to pass it. I advocate it on different grounds. It is because I desire that this Bill may not cause injury throughout Scotland by sowing in every parish the dragon's teeth of religious difficulty and religious difference, but rather that it may be the permanent and peaceful solution of a vital question. I honestly and firmly believe that this Bill is no such settlement; I honestly and firmly believe that as regards the question of religious instruction it contains the elements of neither permanence nor peace.
Amendment moved in line 12, after ("Department") insert—
("And no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in any such school.")—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
LORD LYTTELTONhoped the House would not assent to this proposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who caused the adoption of
1236
this rule in the English Act, did so with the best intentions, and was a true friend to education. But he believed it had done more than anything else to alienate from that Act the mind of the great body of the English clergy, and of very many of the laity. And a main reason was, that while appearing to be impartial, it in truth, put some religious Bodies under a special disadvantage, inasmuch as some such Bodies, as the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian, and, he believed, the Wesleyan valued their formularies, while others had none, or did not care about them. In the English Church, not from any fancy, but from the actual injunction of its authority, these formularies were required to be taught to children. Now, what was the exact meaning of the clause? It could not mean such a mere sham as that certain words were forbidden, but the same sense might be taught. The spirit of the clause, no doubt, was to a great extent observed now in schools, and it was quite proper to teach children in a simple and un-controversial way; but it would probably be found that such teaching was within the limits of what used to be called "orthodox Dissent;" and it answered precisely, because it was not defined by law, but was left to the good sense and discretion of teachers and managers. It would be quite different in the construction, subject to legal appeal, of the express words of a statute—and what religion would that be, which was to contain only what was common to Roman Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, nay, even Jews? We knew that, writers such as the French expressly said, that the essence of true religion might be equally held by Jews as by Christians. That was true subjectively, but could not apply to external teaching, which must involve some definite statements. He believed it could only issue in what he thought the most stupendous nonsense ever propounded—the reading of the Bible to children without a word of explanation. He regretted that such an Amendment had been proposed by a man of the high promise of the noble Earl, not that his speech had much to do with it, for it was a speech simply in favour of secular schools. But the Amendment was well known. He believed it either to be based on a mischievous fallacy, or to be an utter sham.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was utterly at a loss to know what good purpose was expected to be served by moving this Amendment, and that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) seemed to have paid no attention to what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had said in moving the second reading of the Bill, of the preposterous absurdity of a Christian State, or of a State professing to be Christian, prohibiting the education of its children in the Christian religion.
THE EARL OF MINTOsupported the Amendment. He thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had done great service by raising this question. He considered that the Shorter Catechism, which was proposed to be allowed in schools, was a most unfortunate proposition. The Shorter Catechism seemed to him to be quite unfit and out of place in the hands of the children—not because it would have anything in the shape of an ill effect upon them, but that they could not understand it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the speech his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had addressed to their Lordships in support of his proposition was, not so much a speech directed to his Amendment as an argument in favor of secular education. No doubt, much was to be said for and against secular education; but in his (the Duke of Argyll's) opinion much more against it. If the advocates of secular education could secure that children educated in entirely secular schools would have a religious education elsewhere in accordance with the belief of their parents, he should not object to purely secular education in the schools—if they could not secure that, he should refuse to sanction purely secular teaching. But if there was a compulsory separation of religious and secular education, we might be perfectly certain that a great proportion of the children would get no religious education whatever. Moreover, if a system of secular education were thoroughly carried out, and if the children received religious instruction in separate schools from their own clergy, the chances were that this religious instruction would be conceived in a more sectarian spirit than it was now. On the other hand, for the State to resolve upon religious education and dictate to the parents of children the particular form of instruction their chil-
1238
dren should receive, was a thing no Government could sanction, and which the people of Scotland would never submit to. Indeed, he took it that that House was not the place where these religious points should be decided. As to the objection that the Shorter Catechism was unfit for younger children, his contention was that their Lordships were not in a position to enter into that subject. He attached infinitely more value to the opinion of the Westminster Assembly which sat in the Jerusalem Chamber than he did to the opinion on that subject either of his noble Friend or of the majority of the House. As to the use of the word "Liberal" in this matter, he had longed for an opportunity to protest against it. There was a large number of persons in this country who said "you are not a Liberal" if you did not accept some of their crotchets. These persons prescribed all theology and all dogmatic teaching. He did not say that was the wish of his noble Friend, but he absolutely disclaimed the right of any party to dictate what was consistent or what was inconsistent with Liberal opinions. At all events, if the State undertook to provide religious education, it was the duty of the State to secure that the consciences of the minority should be respected; it had a right to say that it would give no money for religious instruction—and it had a right to secure that money granted by the State for educational purposes should be shared in by all; but it had no right to say either to individuals, associations, or Churches—"You may teach religion in the rate-supported schools, but not teach it according to the formulary you have drawn up." With regard to the Amendment of his noble Friend, he must remark that if ever we should come to such a condition of things, that it was impossible to give any religious instruction to children of different religious communions together, then he would be prepared to consider the alternative of purely secular education under such conditions and restrictions as Parliament might devise. But so long as we allowed religious instruction in our schools, he was absolutely averse from either the prescription or proscription of any religious instruction whatever.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the noble Duke had taken him to task for expressing an opinion on the teaching

1239
of the Catechism; but he had simply quoted from the Report of the Commission of the noble Duke which sat in 1867; and, to put the case as strongly as possible in favor of the noble Duke, he had quoted the opinion of the ministers in defense of the Shorter Catechism. He had listened vainly throughout the discussion for any apology for the practice of compelling people to pay for the teaching of religious opinions with which they did not agree.
On Question, whether to insert? Resolved in the Negative.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 222.)

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE VICTORIA TOWER—SMOKE NUISANCE PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he desired to ask a Question with reference to a matter which might be supposed specially to concern himself and those in the house he had the honour to occupy; but when he found the evil of which he complained destroying the stone of the house in which he lived and injuring the owner's own property and the public property committed to his care, and destroying the bindings of the books of the valuable library of which he was the guardian, it was time to consider whether other people might not be equally injured. This nuisance was one which the Legislature had taken steps to correct, for it had entrusted Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State with the duty in the first instance of seeing that such nuisances were abated. Their Lordships were aware that Acts had been passed providing for the consumption of smoke, from the first of which potteries were exempted. By a subsequent Act that exemption had been taken away, so that potteries stood now under the same obligation as other furnaces from which smoke injurious to public health and public property might proceed. The Act which ordered that such matters should be inquired into laid the duty on the Home Secretary of putting in force in the first instance the provisions of the Smoke Nuisance Act. Accordingly, he had sent a memorial to the Secretary of State, and he received from him the answer that the memorial
1240
had been forwarded to the Local Government Board, and from the Local Government Board he received the further intimation that they had handed it to the Vestry of Lambeth. He had the greatest respect for his fellow-parishioners who composed that Vestry, and he had no doubt they were anxious to do their duty; but he thought they were not anxious to do the duty of the Secretary of State. Moreover, he thought the expense of putting down this nuisance could hardly with fairness be charged upon the ratepayers of Lambeth, for the injury done was not confined to the parish, but must extend to the whole surrounding neighborhood. The stone in the buildings on the south side of the Thames, especially in the house which he occupied, was suffering from exactly the same sort of decay as that which was going on in the walls of the Houses of Parliament. Dr. Christison said that muriatic acid which was poured forth from these potteries produced the most serious effects. The muriatic acid was elaborated by pouring on the pottery work when it was red-hot a certain amount of common salt, and the gas thus evolved poisoned the whole atmosphere around. The muriatic acid gas acting on any stone which contained lime immediately decomposed the stone, and any ornamental work like that which abounded in the Houses of Parliament crumbled away. A very small quantity, according to Dr. Christison, was fatal to animal and vegetable life, and anyone might see that the trees which had been planted on the other side of the river were dying under its influence, and he could not but doubt that it would be found that the death rate in some parts of the parish of Lambeth was raised by the pouring out of muriatic acid from these potteries. Therefore, he wished to know, Whether as the Secretary of State had been memorialized on the subject, any steps have been taken to protect the Victoria Tower from the effects of the smoke charged with muriatic acid which is continually poured forth from the low chimneys of the potteries in Lambeth, such effects being equally deleterious to buildings in the neighborhood and to the health of the dense population living near the works?
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSsaid, the decay of stone in the Houses of Parliament had been for some time under con-

1241
sideration. The Government, however, had no information or evidence to show that the decay had arisen from the presence of muriatic acid in the air. Several experiments had been made, and eight were now under course of trial on the stone of the terrace, which was the same as that employed in the Victoria Tower. None had as yet proved that any external application would prevent the decay of the stone. A sum of money had been inserted in the Estimates for this year, and would be continued annually, for the repair of the decayed stone. The Office of Works had no power to interfere with the nuisance of the Lambeth potteries.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought the Smoke Nuisance Prevention Act made it imperative on the Secretary of State to put down the nuisance.
THE EARL OF MORLEYstated that further inquiry was going on as to this subject, and if the most rev. Primate would repeat his Question on a future occasion he should be happy to answer him.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 217.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1a (No. 218.)
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.