Sitting of 24 March 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Jury System (Ireland), appointed; Public Petitions, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLX—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 23] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [March 23] reported.
RESOLUTION IS COMMITTEE—Public Works Loan Commissioners [Loans to School Boards].
Prune BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Game Laws Abolition* [36]; Game Birds (Ireland) [37]: Monastic and Conventual Institutions* [38]: Hypothec (Scotland)* [39]: Wild Animals (Scotland) * [40]; Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871) Repeal* [41]: Registration of Firms* [42]; Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) * [43]; Homicide Law Amendment [44]; Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment* [45]; Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000) *.
Second Reading—(£1,422,797 14 s. 6d.) Consolidated Fund*.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—ADJUTANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WAITasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the temporary rank of Captain in the Army, to which Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces have recently been gazetted, inverts the order of seniority hitherto in force; and, whether such temporary rank gives to such Adjutants while serving regimentally the command of the Captains of their respective Regiments or Battalions?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the temporary rank did not invert
266
the order of seniority. It had been conferred upon some officers who had either never been in the Army or had left it, and it did not give rank over the captains of regiments or battalions, inasmuch as the officers upon whom it was conferred were regimentally at the bottom of the list.

NATAL—THE LATE KAFFIR OUT-BREAK.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARD JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the measures adopted in Natal in connection with the suppression of the late Kaffir outbreak; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table any Correspondence with the Lieutenant Governor and others on the subject?
MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to the subject, and the Correspondence commenced by their predecessors was now being carried on by them. It would be of no use producing the Correspondence until it was complete; but he hoped shortly to be able to lay upon the Table extracts from it.

HYPOTHEC, &c. (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION FOR SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. J. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends, on behalf of the Government, to introduce a measure abolishing agricultural hypothec in Scotland; and, if he is prepared to inform the House what are the "other measures relating to her (Scotland's) interests," referred to in Her Majesty's Speech?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: The House having only met for business on Thursday, there has not yet been time for maturely considering what measures relating to the interests of Scotland can with advantage be introduced at present. I may say, however, that I think the interests of Scotland shall not be neglected; but hon. Gentlemen must allow Her Majesty's Government to choose the proper time, having reference to the other Business of the House, for the introduction of such measures.
MR. J. BARCLAY: The Lord Advocate has scarcely answered the first Question I have put to him.
THE LORD ADVOCATE: My answer was intended to cover the first Question, and I can only say that an hon. Member (Mr. Vans Agnew) has already given Notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject of hypothec.

SCOTLAND-CENSUS RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate. The cause of the delay in publishing the Census Returns for Scotland, and when they will be issued?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Two volumes have been presented of these Census Returns, the last on the 31st July, 1873. The delay in the publishing of the third and remaining volume has been the subject of correspondence between the Home Secretary and the authorities in Scotland, and we are informed that the delay has been duo to throe causes. In the first place, the preparation of certain special Returns from the Education Board under the provisions of the Education Act; then a large amount of matter being given in the form of remarks on the result of the Census, in addition to that contained in the Report, applicable to the Census of 1861; and in the third place, the Superintendent of the Census Office has been ill. Every exertion is now being made to complete the work, and it is hoped that this will be accomplished in the month of May.

ARMY—NEW BARRACKS AT GALWAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MORRISasked the Secretary of State for War, When it is likely the building of the new Barracks at Galway will be commenced?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he believed the building would be commenced by the 1st of June. The plans would be ready for the contractors by the 1st of May.

LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it was his intention to introduce this Session a Bill for the Improvement of Labourers' Dwellings in Ireland; and, if so, about what period of the Session such Bill might be looked for?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he found the question had been fully considered by his predcessors in office, and on more than one occasion an undertaking had been entered into by them to initiate legislation upon it; but he must fairly say he had not had time to consider it himself. He would not be prepared, at any rate for some few weeks, to say what course he would take on the subject; but if within a reasonable time he was not able to bring in a Bill, he should not trouble the House with a measure which would be introduced at too late a period of the Session to afford an opportunity of its passing into law.

COINAGE OF HALF-CROWNS AND FLORINS.—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state to the House the general result of the replies given by bankers and others to the inquiries addressed to them by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the advisability of continuing (or otherwise) the coinage of half-crowns and florins?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The late Government directed questions to be put to a number of bankers with reference to the circulation of florins and half-crowns, suggesting those three courses:—Either that florins should continue to be coined and half-crowns withdrawn, or that half-crowns should continue to be coined and florins withdrawn, or that both should continue to be coined. Answers were received from 302 bankers to the following effect:—Of the 302 bankers, 46 reported their opinion in favour of the circulation of florins only; 63 in favour of the circulation of half-crowns only; and 193 in favour of the circulation of both concurrently. In consequence of that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, just before leaving office, put an announcement in the newspapers that the issue of half-crowns would be resumed, and some, as he was informed, would be ready for issue in about a month.

BANK HOLIDAYS ACT—MONEY ORDER OFFICE DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOUSEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the Bank Holidays Act being extended, he would consider the

269
possibility of granting a like extension to those employed in the Money Order Office Department of London and the country, as well as those of the several bonding warehouses in the Provinces?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to promise that this should be done.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—REPORTS OF INSPECTORS.—QUESTION.
MR. HORSMANwished to put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade as to the Reports of the Inspectors of that Department on Railway Accidents. The House had those Reports before it down to the month of August last. Would all the subsequent Reports be laid on the Table, in order that they might be available for the discussion on railway accidents of which Notice had been given?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that three kinds of Reports were laid on the Table of the House every year by the Board of Trade relating to railway accidents. The Reports of the Inspectors of every accident as it occurred were laid on the Table, of which there were a large number last Session; there was presented also a résumé of all those Reports at the end of every Session, the last up to the close of 1872. The Report for 1873 was in the printers' hands, and would be out in a few days; and a Report of all railway accounts was presented annually, showing the amount of compensation paid to passengers injured; that of last year would be presented about the beginning of June.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS—REPORT OF THE SCIENCE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. WALPOLEasked the hon. Member for Sheffield, Whether he would for the present withdraw his Notice of Motion with reference to the Report of the Science Commission on National Museums, and bring it forward at a later period of the Session, it being a subject upon which it might be thought a longer Notice should be given.
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that when he gave the Notice it was to the effect that the Motion should be considered on an early day, and he was surprised to see it on the Notice Paper for that evening. It would be exceedingly
270
inconvenient to the Trustees of the British Museum to take it after so short a Notice, and therefore he proposed to defer its consideration to the middle of May.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—(OPPOSED BUSINESS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HEYGATE, in rising to move—
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall he taken when such Notice is called,"
  expressed his regret at the absence from the present House of Commons of Colonel Wilson Patten, Sir George Grey, Mr. Bouverie, and Mr. Collins, who were so conversant with the business of that Chamber and had boon accustomed to take so active a part in its proceedings. There was, he added, nothing of a party character in his Motion, as it merely sought to provide that important measures of legislation should not be passed at inordinately late hours. A Resolution to secure that object had been unanimously agreed to by the Committee which sat to consider the question in 1872, and were the present only another Session of the late Parliament he should hardly deem it necessary to trouble the House at any length in support of his proposal. But, as there were now in the House of Commons over 200 new Members, it might be desirable that he should state the reasons which had led to the adoption of the Rule with regard to the hour after which Opposed Business could not be taken, which prevailed last Session. Previous to 1870, great and increasing difficulty had arisen owing to the uncertainty as to what business would come on for discussion on a particular night, and the number of Orders—sometimes 30 or 40—which stood on the Notice Paper without the slightest probability that they would be proceeded with. The late nights to which the House had become accustomed were attended with a variety of inconveniences. Among these was the practice of hon. Members obstructing the business by moving alternate Motions for the adjournment of the House and for the

  271
  adjournment of the debate into an advanced hour in the morning, giving rise to exhibitions which had been commented on out-of-doors in terms by no means favourable to the character of the House. At those late hours the business was very badly got through, and Bills had to be introduced in the subsequent Sessions to remedy the defects of such perfunctory legislation. Among other disadvantages attending those late hours was the fact that all the speeches delivered then were entirely smothered. There was no need to complain of the conduct of the gentlemen in the Gallery in the matter, as the morning newspapers were published at an early hour, and it was impossible that speeches delivered at advanced hours could be reported at any length, so that Members in speaking at these late hours were simply wasting their eloquence. With regard to the practice of moving alternately the adjournment of the House and the adjournment of the debate, Members who had sat in the last Parliament would recollect one sitting at which there were 11 divisions after midnight, and another when there were no fewer than 14 divisions on Motions of that sort, and that on one occasion the House sat until 4 o'clock in the morning, while on another occasion it sat until a quarter past 5 o'clock in the morning. The result was that a Select Committee was appointed to consider the question, which came to an unanimous decision in favour of a Resolution which he had taken on the foundation of that which he was now about to submit to the House. The late Speaker of the House of Commons (Viscount Ossington) and the Chief Clerk of the House (Sir Erskine May) were examined before that Committee, and the former gave it as his opinion that nine hours' consecutive work—from 4, the hour at which the House met, till 1 o'clock next morning—were as much as any deliberative Assembly ought to be called upon to perform. It should also be borne in mind that a large proportion of hon. Members sat on Committees upstairs from 11 till 4, nor must the fact be forgotten that morning sittings were held for a considerable part of the Session. The late Speaker added that the protracted Sittings of the House till late in the morning resulted in turning what ought to be a most honourable service into an almost intolerable slavery,
  272
  and that, in his opinion, the practice was highly reprehensible; nor did he think such self-sacrifice on the part of the House received the approbation of the country. He would appeal to the House to say whether there had not been a vast improvement wrought by the Resolution which he now proposed to have renewed. An exception had been made in regard to Money Bills, which it might be necessary, in the interests of the public service, to have immediately attended to; and it had also been determined that opposition should, for the purposes of the Resolution, not be counted as such when it sprang up at the moment and without Notice, as in that case anyone might have it in his power to stop the progress of a Bill. In this form, which had the approval of the late Prime Minister, the Resolution was unanimously approved by the House in 1872. Last year, when the question was again debated, there was an almost unanimous approval of the new arrangement; the late Prime Minister gave important testimony in favour of it saying that "on the whole, and in spite of certain disadvantages, it had worked to the comfort and relief of a really overt asked House;" and by 191 votes against 37 the Resolution was again passed. He had been urged by hon. Friends on both sides of the House not to be contented with the Resolution as it stood, but to propose the adoption of it in the form recommended by the Select Committee, which would have carried the restriction very much further; but it seemed to him he was adopting a prudent course which deserved to meet with support when he confined himself to asking hon. Members merely to re-affirm the Resolution, which had received the approval of the late Prime Minister, and which had tended greatly to diminish both scandals and discomfort attending the proceedings of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. GOLDSMID, in seconding the Motion, repeated what he had ventured to assert on former occasions, that there was no Legislative Assembly in the world which kept such disreputable hours as the House of Commons. If they looked at the Assemblies of France, Prussia, Austria, and Italy, they found them finishing their legislative work at some hour between 6 and 10, except when there was a prolonged debate on

  273
  some important Ministerial question. Such early hours conduced to the sustained and zealous attendance of Members, and consequently he believed to the general benefit of the country. On this principle he regarded the Rule now proposed as one which tended to the advantage of the country as well as to the comfort of hon. Members: because he was convinced that the measures which had in years past been carried through the House at very late hours had been in nearly all cases slovenly, and in many very unsatisfactory, the result having been, as pointed out by the hon. Member, that many Amendment Bills had been rendered necessary. If hon. Members would think for a moment, they would see that the time which would be devoted to the Business of the House under the Rule now submitted would still be amply sufficient to meet the largest demands for legislative employment. An hon. Member would have to come to the House at 12, and sit on a Committee till 4, keeping his attention concentrated upon the business before him; and then from half-past-1 till half-past 12 he would have eight more hours for the consideration of important public business. If any hon. Member found this demand upon his energies insufficient, he must be a very uncommon man. The majority of hon. Members did not belong to such a class, and, as a general rule, the power of attending to business had disappeared by so late an hour as half-past 12. He had constantly been told, out of the House, that legislation carried late at night was bad, and that it was the duty of Members to their constituents to oppose as strongly as they could such a way of doing business. This Resolution was an instalment of reform in the right direction, and was framed in a reasonable spirit, which ought to commend it to all hon. Members. There was another important consideration to be urged in favour of the proposition. It often happened that hon. Members, when they took part in the debates, desired to speak to their constituents as well as to the House; but no speech that he could remember on a fresh subject of importance commenced after midnight, was ever reported, the gentlemen in the reporters' Gallery, who did their work so well, being precluded from doing so by the
  274
  obvious reason, among others, that it would be impossible to publish at 6 o'clock speeches delivered at 2 or 3 o'clock. The considerations he had urged were, he thought, sufficient to recommend the Motion, and he trusted that the House would not be misled by the dulcet tones of the hon. and learned Member who was expected to oppose it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Bay or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called."—(Mr. Heggate.)
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, in rising to move as an Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the time allotted by the rides of the House to the consideration of the Bills introduced by private Members is already insufficient for the due discussion of the same, and ought not to be further restricted,"
  complained that he was an old victim of the system now sought to be re-established. In fact, he had always understood that one of the objects for which it was originally introduced was to shelve a Bill (the Burials Bill) which in happier days he had the honour of submitting to the House. Fortunately or unfortunately, the House would not be called upon to consider that Bill this Session, and he might, therefore, be regarded as approaching the present subject with disinterested, he hoped oven with patriotic feelings. The short ground on which he opposed the Motion was that it seemed to him to aim a deathblow at the rights of private Members to legislate at all, and he could only regard the fact that the Motion had been carried in the last two Sessions by the votes of private Members as either a high tribute to the eloquence of its supporters or as a proof of the extreme complacency of those whose rights were so prejudicially affected. On the first working night of the present Session Notice was given by private Members of the introduction of no less than 25 Bills. Many of them were of great importance, ranging over the whole area of human interest, from married women to ancient monuments. Sixteen more, he thought, had been added to the number,

  275
  and the cry was "Still they come." He was sure that before the Easter Vacation they would have as many as between 30 and 60 private Members' Bills. Now, for these Bills how much time had they? Tuesdays and Fridays were in a sense private Members' nights; but they were devoted to the airing of grievances and to matters not directly connected with legislation. As a matter of fact, the Orders of the Day had rarely been reached on these nights by half-past 12. Whether this would continue to be the case now that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had crossed the gangway and taken a seat in the seclusion and silence of the Treasury Bench he did not know, but there was reason to fear that it would. The only other day left to private Members was Wednesday, when it was imperative that discussions should be brought to a close before 6 o'clock; and he calculated that, after deducting holidays—sporting and ecclesiastical—there would be just 10 Wednesdays left during the remainder of the Session for the second reading, Committee stage, and third reading of private Members' Bills. He found that until the 15th of July every Wednesday had already been disposed of; therefore it would be impossible for any private Member to carry a Bill which was opposed by a single other Member. Such a state of things never existed in that House until within the last two years, or, he believed, in any other House except the Polish Diet before the disintegration of that unfortunate kingdom. In 1872, he brought in a Bill to afford further facilities for the conveyance of Land for Sites for Places of Worship, &c. That Bill met with, he was going to say, universal approbation; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) thought he discovered in it a scheme to undermine the Protestant religion, and that he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was playing unconsciously into the hands of the Jesuits. The hon. Member refused to allow him to go on with his Bill unless he consented to the insertion of a clause—namely,
  "And such trust deeds, together with the names of the trustees for the time being, shall be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery."
  Knowing that deeds could not be enrolled without expense, and that even if they were enrolled their enrolment would
  276
  prove no protection to the Protestant interest, he opposed the clause; but the hon. Member said—" Take the Bill with my clause or not at all; I have the power of preventing the passing of the Bill, which I will exercise." [Mr. NEWDEGATE dissented.] The hon. Member intimated dissent; but when he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) came down to the House, he found that the hon. Member had given Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill he would move the postponement of the Committee for six months. The Bill could not have been passed if he had not allowed the clause of the hon. Member to be inserted, and the Bill passed with that clause in it. "When the Bill reached the other house one noble and learned Lord said he never saw anything more ridiculous than that clause in his life; and another said he could not conceive how any man of common sense, much loss a lawyer, could have inserted such a clause. In the end the Bill was thrown out with expressions of contumely. The next year he brought in the Bill without the clause of the hon. Member. When the Bill reached Committee he shook in his shoes at the thought of the hon. Member; but fortunately he had been so much engaged on his Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill that he fell asleep, and while he was in that condition he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) carried his Bill through Committee. And yet, notwithstanding, the Queen was still on the Throne, the Jesuits were where they were, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that he was the the only man in England who had ever caught the hon. Member for North Warwickshire asleep. Mr. Hibbert, who, he hoped, would soon return to the House, had told him more than once that he could not have carried his Clerical Disabilities Bill—that most useful measure, which had been found to work so well—if this Rule had been in operation. Bather than allow matters to remain as they were by reason of the existence of the Rule he would prefer having a veto put on private Members legislating at all, and thus throw upon the Executive in every case the initiative of legislation. He agreed that many Acts of Parliament were drawn in a slovenly manner; but he agreed that a great number were spoiled in their passage through the House by the process of "squaring" opposition, which this

  277
  Rule encouraged. The Bill which the hon. and learned Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Charley) carried for amending the law of bastardy was spoilt through his consenting to the insertion of a clause which repealed the old law six months before the new came into operation, and the result of which was that for six months the unfortunate victims for whose protection the Bill was introduced were loft without any remedy. The arguments in favour of the Rule turned upon the supposition that under this regulation the House did not sit so late as in former years; but that was an entire mistake. During 1870 and 1871, when this Rule was not in operation in the House, the hours of sitting after midnight were respectively 130 and 143. During 1872, when the Rule came into operation, the House sat 142 hours after midnight, or only one hour less than in the previous year, and 12 hours more than in 1870. These statistics were sufficient to deprive of all force the argument of his hon. Friend. The Rule tended to make the Sittings later by inducing Members to talk against time, and it acted as a direct premium on loquacity. That had happened twenty times within his own knowledge. For all these reasons he would give a determined opposition to the Motion of his hon. Friend. The labours of the Session were not likely to be very arduous, and he did not see why the Prime Minister should not consent to give to private Members portions of Mondays and Thursdays. They had been told that the mission of the present Government was to protect the just rights of all Her Majesty's subjects, and surely legislators had a right to legislate. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) seemed determined that he should not agree with him. Unfortunately for the hon. and learned Member, he did not agree with him in the substance of his Amendmont; but as he (Mr. Newdegate) also agreed with the Motion before the House he could not vote for the Amendment in supercession of the original Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to second the Amendment? If not, he is out of Order.
  MR. DILLWYNthen rose to second
  278
  the Amendment, though not on the grounds set forth by the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) in proposing it. He objected to the Rule, in the interest, not of private Members, but of legislation generally, and because it tended to produce "lobby legislation," instead of proper discussion and legislation in that House. The meaning of that was, that when Private Bills were opposed, the parties interested retired into the lobby, and, having arranged their differences, the objectionable clauses in them were amended and agreed to, and the Bills passed without any further opposition. Now, to that mode of proceeding he had a decided objection. He did not find fault with the system of throwing out many Bills brought forward by private Members, because sometimes the Government took up the questions, and it was for the public interest necessary that they should do so. For his own part, he had no great reason to complain of the Rule; for although it had given him a good deal of trouble, he had succeeded in passing an important measure in spite of it; but he objected to the Rule on behalf of business in the hands of Government. The Government were at all times anxious to get their Bills through the House before the end of July, and on account of this Rule had to compromise with private Members who had Amendments on them. They had to go into the lobby and square up with those private Members, and clauses were thus passed which were objectionable, and would not have been passed had they been discussed in the House. That, he believed, was a bad habit. The existing Rule of the House was clearly insufficient, and he should therefore vote for its repeal to prevent this "lobby legislation." He thought it would be well to add to the original Motion words providing that the Resolution should not apply to money Bills or those which had passed through Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the time allotted by the Rules of the House to the consideration of Bills introduced by private Members is already insufficient for the due discussion of the same and ought not to be further restricted,"—(Mr. Osborne Morgan,)
  —instead thereof,
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having taken a very active part in the deliberations of the Committee on Public Business last appointed by the House, it was not likely that he should now oppose the Rule. He thought, however, it was doubtful whether it ought to be brought into operation very early in the Session. So sensible was he of the evil which the Rule was originally intended to obviate, that he should not oppose his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) on the present occasion; but he thought the subject-matter of the Amendment ought to be treated separately. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had cited the instance of a Bill he himself introduced. It was a measure for the purchase of sites for religious worship. He (Mr. Newdegate) moved a clause providing for the enrolment of the deeds, and the House sanctioned it; the House of Lords threw out the clause for enrolment, and the hon. and learned Member accused him of being asleep the next Session when the Bill was re-introduced, because he did not insist on the insertion of the same clause. The hon. and learned Member gave him no credit, however, for having yielded to the decision of the House of Lords. He was by no means asleep; but he thought the subject of enrolment ought to be dealt with by another Bill. Certainly it could not be said of the hon. and learned Member himself, aliquando dormitat, for at that moment he was prepared to prevent the Souse from ever going to bed. The opportunities given to private Members for bringing forward their measures were not sufficient. Within a week of the opening of the business of the Session, every Wednesday was filled up to the 15th of July. Some limit should be placed on this reaching forward of hon. Members to seize Wednesdays for the second reading of their Bills. The Rule preventing Members from choosing a day for Notices of Motion beyond a fortnight, might be advantageously applied to second readings of Bills on Wednesdays. He should support the Motion.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would not discuss the practices of foreign assemblies. He would only say that if the majority were going to follow the precedent of the Polish Diet, and kill the minority, he hoped they would, at least,
  280
  allow the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to pass his Burials Bill first. He was not originally in favour of the Resolution. He was a Member of the Committee of 21, to which the Mover of the Resolution alluded; but he was not present when its recommendation was agreed to, nor had he voted in support of the Rule adopted in the House. His own feeling had always been that, as a general rule, these matters were best left to the good sense of Parliament, and that liberty ought not to be too much restricted. This particular Rule was open to several objections. It did not allow any particular measure to be talked out, as on Wednesdays, but it enabled anyone to shelve a measure successfully by talking on the preceding Bill till half-past 12 o'clock. It was a sound maxim that vigilentibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt; but this Rule reversed the maxim, because any somnolent Member had only to place on the Paper a Notice of objection to a measure, and provided he made sure that the discussion on the preceding Bill would be proceeded with beyond half-past 12, he might go home early to bed. It was not, therefore, a Rule the stringency of which he should like to see increased. As regarded the Motion which had now been made, he was not prepared to offer any opposition to it. A Rule of this kind had been approved by a Committee of the House—this Rule was unanimously agreed to by the House itself in 1872—and was confirmed by a large majority, after experience of its operation, in 1873. Thus a new Parliament might well give it a trial, but it should be adopted as a Sessional Order, not a Standing Order, so that it would call for re-consideration at the commencement of next Session. The statement that this Rule had occasioned the defects in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) seemed a post hoc propter hoc argument; for his part he could not connect the two things. Be this as it might, the House could hardly go far wrong in adopting the Rule experimentally.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that, generally speaking, he was very little disposed to curtail the privileges of private Members. This question had been considered by Committees, and often by the House. In the Committee of 1871, of which he

  281
  was a Member, the principle of limiting the privileges of Members in this respect to a certain part of the night, was brought forward by Mr. Bouverie—a name always to be mentioned with respect in that House—and as to the conduct of its business a high authority, to whom he had no doubt they should often appeal. Mr. Bonverie's proposal was that the Rule should take effect at 1 o'clock. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) submitted, as an Amendment, that it should take effect at half-past 12. The question was discussed by a strong Committee, and a large majority—if he remembered rightly, 15 to 4—decided in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, which he himself had the honour of supporting. On the whole, experience had shown the Rule to be satisfactory. No doubt some instances might be quoted in which its exercise had been not exactly vexatious, but disappointing, to some Members; but, on the whole, the feeling of the last House had been favourable to the Rule, though he quite agreed that it would be prudent to pass it only as a Sessional Order. At the same time, a suggestion had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) which seemed worthy of consideration—namely, that this Rule should not apply to the third reading of Bills. He thought such a modification would not interfere with the general spirit of the Rule, while it would prevent the vexatious exercise of it in the case of third readings, and remove some of the objections urged against it. The same feeling which induced him to support-in the Select Committee the proposal of the hon. Member for Warwickshire would now induce him to support the Motion before the House; but he wished his hon. Friend (Mr. Heygate) would alter the Motion, excepting from the operation of the Rule Money Bills or Bills which had passed through Committee.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought it would be better to adopt the Rule as it had come down from the last Parliament, leaving for future consideration the question whether the modification just suggested should be adopted next year. The result of the modification would simply be that the good nature of Members would end at an earlier period than it did now, and Bills would not be allowed to go through Committee. The Rule seemed to him to work very
  282
  well as it was, and he hoped it would pass without alteration.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDremarked that no private Member could pass a Bill which was opposed with anything like strength. They had tried the operations of the Act as it stood, and had been made aware of its stringency, and if they tried a modification they would be better able to form a judgment upon the matter.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the simple question was, not whether the time for private legislation should be restricted, but whether the little time available for business after half-past 12 should be used or wasted. Those who had to do with the little hours knew that half a dozen Members might move the adjournment, and that one or two hours might be pleasantly spent in walking through the lobbies. Any man could always get three or four men, as wicked as himself, to act with him. That was sheer waste of time; whereas under this Rule what was done after half-past 12 really advanced business. He thought it would make little difference whether the question was to be settled by a Standing Order or a Sessional Order. What they wanted was to save time, and he believed the mode proposed would have that effect,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would withdraw his Amendment and accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and approved by the Prime Minister. He knew many cases in which the Rule in question had worked very injuriously, and "squaring" led to bad legislation. In one instance an Irish Member introduced a Bill which would enable money to be borrowed at 3A per cent to build mansions in Ireland. He put a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time in three months. What did the hon. Member do? He gave Notice of an Amendment to a Bill of his (Mr. Mundella's), and then went off to Ireland for three weeks. In another case a Bill of his for the protection of children was treated in the same way; an hon. Member gave Notice of an Amendment, and then went off to Wales. The maintenance of the Rule as it stood would cause great inconvenience and irritation to hon. Members; it would

  283
  work still harder on the hardworking Members, whilst it would allow the indolent to go comfortably home to bed.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) would take the sense of the House upon the proposition, because he (Mr. Mowbray) believed that great evil and much injury to health were consequent upon transacting business at such very late hours. The Rule was one on which all who were Members of the last Parliament had abundant experience. They had been recommended by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) to trust to the good sense of Members. Some years ago, when they had Mr. Brotherton in the House, and he endeavoured to enforce a 12 o'clock rule, they were also told not to tie their hands, but to trust to the good sense of the House. But when Mr. Brotherton was gone, and they came to rely on that vague thing, the good sense of the House, it broke down. They had experience of late hours in 1869 and 1870, and found how prejudicial those prolonged sittings were to the health of Members; while, on the other hand, the Rule now proposed had been sanctioned by a large majority of the Committee in 1871, and found to work satisfactorily in 1872 and 1873. He would point out to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government that the modification which he approved would have a very sensible effect in limiting the operation of the Rule; and it should be remembered that the interpretation put on the Rule by the authorities of the House had already very considerably restricted its operation. It was at first very generally understood that the Rule would operate against Amendments in Committee; but it was decided that once the Speaker left the Chair, it would not apply to such Amendments. And now, if hon. Members were not allowed to take an objection to the Report or to the third reading, the Rule would be efficacious only in two instances—the second reading and the Motion for going into Committee. He hoped, therefore, the House would affirm a Rule which had been found to be efficacious, which had contributed to the health and convenience of Members, and had been tried and worked satisfactorily for the two past years.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, it seemed to be assumed that all the bad
  284
  legislation was after 12 o'clock; but there was a great deal of bad legislation at the dinner hour, and after dinner. There was of late years a growing tendency to limit the opportunities of private Members for carrying Bills through the House; and if that limitation were carried much further hon. Members would cease to have any independent power of legislation, and they would become simply an Assembly to decide upon the measures which were brought forward by the Government. The question was realty one of constitutional importance. Some years ago he passed through Parliament a Bill which now regulated all Roman Catholic charities in this country. This measure was bitterly opposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and if the limit as to half-past 12 had been then in force, the Bill, with such opposition, could never have been carried at all. That showed the inconvenience that might arise from giving to any one Member a power absolutely to stop the proceedings of another.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he felt it impossible to accept the suggestion approved by the high authority of the Prime Minister. It would entirely emasculate a Resolution which had been approved by the Committee of 1871, which had worked well for two years, and which had found acceptance on both sides of the House. The fact was, instead of limiting the operation of the Rule, he had been pressed to go in a very different direction.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved, as far as he could ascertain the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen in his immediate neighbourhood, that they were inclined to support the modification recommended by the Prime Minister; but he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would first withdraw his Amendment. As far as he could judge, the Prime Minister was making a concession to private Members which ought to be accepted. With respect to the general question, he thought a great deal too much had been made of the interests of private Members; because, as a matter of fact, they had arrived at a state of things in this country when the Government must reflect the public opinion, and the measures introduced by the Government were those measures upon which the

  285
  public opinion most demanded legislation. And, moreover, as soon as the Government launched a measure in the House—he did not say whether the measure was right or wrong—it became the property of the House, and any private Member had as much right to speak upon it as the Government. Any measure backed by a strong force of public opinion was sure to obtain a hearing, and the late hours which prevailed prior to the Rule were detrimental to the health of Members. Some of the best men in the country always occupied the Treasury Bench, whatever party was in power, and he had often seen them detained to a very late hour of night, to the waste of their time and energies, by Gentlemen who, though estimable, proposed measures backed by no force of public opinion. The real truth was, that it was impossible to do business in an Assembly of 650 persons except by the exercise of great self-restraint and mutual forbearance. The proposed restriction was, he thought, wise and salutary, and he would support it with the Prime Minister's modification. He would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment. ["No, no!"]
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he saw no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion evidently favoured by the general feeling of the House. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) had suggested a modification which the Prime Minister had very judiciously accepted, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) proposed to withdraw his Amendment in its favour. There appeared to be an objection to such withdrawal; but, if so, it could be negatived, and then, on the Main Question being put, his hon. Friend could propose the proviso as an addendum.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that if the House would permit him he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No."]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end thereof, the words, "Provided, that this Rule shall not apply to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the House."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked whether such a proviso was in Order? The House had
  286
  already resolved that the Resolution as it stood should be the Question put, and the proviso was in contradiction to the the words, "except for a Money Bill."
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought that there was no doubt whatever that the words could be added. All that had been determined by the House was that the original Resolution should stand part of the Question before the House. It need not be the whole Question, and though he acknowledged the proviso was rather awkwardly framed, this had resulted from leave to withdraw the original Amendment having been refused.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House had declared that the words proposed by the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) should stand part of the Question. It was quite open to any hon. Member to propose the addition of words to the Resolution.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 113: Majority 162.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion he taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called: Provided, that this Utile shall not apply to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the House.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1871) REPEAL BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READTNG.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal "The Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871)," said, having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's Government had appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and that they had promised to legislate upon it during the present Session, he was willing to postpone the second reading of the Bill until the 10th of June. Before that time they could hardly expect the Commission to make their Report, and after that time legislation might be regarded as impracticable.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the introduction of this Bill; but he was glad to find that the hon. Member proposed to defer its second reading at all events for a considerable time. He should like to say, as there had been some misconception upon the matter, that the first moment that the most urgent business which the Government had to deal with was disposed of, he had brought before their attention what he thought was the most pressing matter connected with the particular Department of which he had charge—namely, this question of the disputes which had arisen as to the working of two Acts of Parliament that had lately been passed, and the Government took up that matter at the first possible opportunity. He should like also to state that the way in which they found matters was this: A Royal Commission had been issued which had accumulated a vast amount of facts, and upon these facts Parliament had legislated. Two Acts of Parliament had been passed regulating the relations between master and servant; but complaint had been made that serious differences of opinion had arisen amongst large classes of Her Majesty's subjects with reference to the working of these Acts of Parliament. There was no information that he could place his hands upon, in the Home Office or elsewhere, to show the particular eases as to which complaints had arisen, and it became the duty of the Government to see how best they could inform themselves as to the matters in dispute. The working of the Law of Conspiracy having been questioned, it was necessary before legislating that they should have the advice of some of Her Majesty's Judges, and that the Judges should obtain information on which to give advice. The Government, therefore, thought the best way was to appoint a Royal Commission of perfectly independent men to consider what were the precise points in dispute, and to ascertain the facts. The Government had undertaken to do their duty, and hoped to receive the Report of the Committee in such time as to enable them to legislate upon the matter during the present Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to repeal "The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1871," ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. EUSTACK SMITH, Mr. MACDONALD, Mr. BURT, Mr. CARTER, and Mr. MORLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

  JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire and report on the working of the Irish Jury system before and since the passing of the. Act 34 and 35 Vie. c. 65: and whether any and what amendments are necessary to secure the due administration of justice."—(Mr. Brucn.)
  And, on April 20, Committee nominated as follows:—Sir MICHAEL HIOKS BEACH, The Marquess of HARTINOTON, Br. BALL., Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. LAW, Mr. PLUNKET, Mr. O'RELLY, Mr. LOPFS The O'DONOGHUE, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. VERNER. Mr. HKNRY HKKHKKT, Mr. SYNA and Mr. BRUEN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on April 22, The O'Conor Don, and Sir Arthur Guinness added.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House: and that such Reports do in all cases set forth the number of Signatures to each Petition:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report then-opinion and observations thereupon to the House:"—Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. KAN-SHUTTLEWORTH, The O'DONOGHUE, Mr. O'CONOR, Mr. M'LAGAN, Karl DE GREY, Mr. KINNAIRD, Lord ARTHUR. BUSSELL, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSRV GORE, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. RECINALD YORKE, Sir CHAKLES RUSSELL, Mr. SANDFORD, MR. SIMONDS, and Viscount CRICHTON:—Three to be the quorum.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  GAME LAWS ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. P. A. TAYLOR, Bill for the Abolition of the Game Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. P. A. TAYLOR, Mr. BURT, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. GEORGE DINON, and Mr. M'COMBIR.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 36.]

  CAME BIRDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount CRICHTON, Bill for altering the shooting season for Grouse and certain other Game Birds in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, and The Marquess of HAMILTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire respecting Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEWDEGATE, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, and Mr. HOLT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

  HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. VANS AGNEW, Bill to abolish the Landlord's right of Hypothec for Rent, except in regard to Dwelling-houses, in Scotland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. VANS AGNEW, Mr. BAILLIE HAMILTON, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING MAXWELL, and Sir GEORGE DOUGLAS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 30.]

  WILD ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES BARCLAY, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Wild Animals in Scotland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. JAMES BARCLAY, Mr. TREVELYAN, and Mr. FORDYCE.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 40.]

  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill for the Registration of certain Firms carrying on business in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, and Mr. WRITWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RICHARD SMYTH, Bill to prevent the sale of Spirituous Liquors in Public Houses on Sunday in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD SMYTH, The O'CONOR Dux, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. DEASK, Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Mr. REDMOND, MR. JAMES CORKY, and Mr. THOMAS DICKSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

  HOMICIDE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNKY, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Homicide, ordered to be brought in; by Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY and Mr. LOPES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

  CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. ORB EWING, Mr. JAMES COWAN, Mr. LEITH, and Mr. YKAMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [March 23] reported and agreed to—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS [LOANS TO SCHOOL BOARDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise an Advance or Advances, not exceeding £1,500,000, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, for enabling them to make Loans to School Boards in pursuance of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  Resolution to be reported
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.
PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That section 4. of Standing Order, No. 179, be suspended in respect of Bills originating in this House and included in either of the two classes of Private Bills in Standing Order, No. 178; and that all such Bills be read a second time on Friday the 27th instant; and that all Petitions praying to be heard upon the merits against any such Bill be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office before Three o'clock in the afternoon on or before Saturday the 4th day of April next.
SOUTH SEA ISLANDS.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF BELMORErose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies or Extracts of any further Correspondence respecting outrages committed upon Natives of the South Sea Islands, and to ask a
  256
  Question. His present Motion might be regarded as a renewal of a Motion which he made at the end of last Session, but which the noble Earl the late Secretary for the Colonies requested him not to press, as the Papers were at that time incomplete. Nine months had since elapsed, and probably a good deal of further information had been received in the meantime. He was not aware whether any serious cases of outrage, such as those to which his Motion referred had occurred within the past year; but he observed that, in answer to a deputation of the Aborigines Protection Society, which waited upon him a few days since, his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) stated that grave cases had been brought to his notice, and he (the Earl of Belmore) now desired to know whether the cases referred to were new ones. With reference to the Fiji Islands, he did not wish to go into individual cases; but he wished to know the exact tenor of the instructions given to Commodore Goodenough. He was under the impression that the subject of inquiry was to be whether the Government of those Islands should be recognized, and generally into the question of the outrages on the Natives. The late Ministry had directed the Governors of our Australian Colonios to deal with the Government of the Fiji Islands as a de facto Government, but formal recognition of that Government was withheld. He thought it was wise of Her Majesty's late Government to give the Government of the Fiji Islands a fair trial; but he believed it had entirely broken down, and that the White residents were greatly dissatisfied with the so-called Government. Such a Government, under the headship of an uneducated Native Chief, was not likely to repress outrages and sustain order. He had seen it stated lately that the object of the Commission to the Islands was to inquire as to the propriety of annexation. If that were so, it would indicate a change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's late Government. The question of annexation was raised 15 years ago under different circumstances, and it was again considered by Her Majesty's Government in 1870. Lord Canterbury had in that year forwarded, after an Inter-colonial Conference at Melbourne, a Memorandum from his Ministers to the

  257
  Secretary of State, which was replied to by a definite refusal to annex the Islands. He (the Earl of Belmore) had had a copy of this reply communicated to him, and had forwarded a Minute to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), from his own Ministers expressing regret at the decision which had been arrived at. He (the Earl of Belmore) read an extract from the Melbourne Argus which stated that very large quantities of sugar were raised within the Islands. The question was one of considerable importance; but it was surrounded with difficulties, and, in the absence of the information he now asked for, he gave no opinion as to whether there should be an annexation. If Her Majesty's Government resolved on doing anything in that way, what they ought to do, in the first instance, was to establish a Government for those Islands in the nature of the Government of a Crown Colony; in which case the Colonial Office would retain a control over it. The noble Earl concluded by asking what was the exact nature of the Commission and instructions which were given to Commodore Goodenough, R.N., and Mr. Consul Layard, as Royal or Special Commissioners to the Fiji Group of Islands; and by moving an Address for Correspondence.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of any further correspondence respecting outrages committed upon natives of the South Sea Islands, in continuation of the papers upon this subject laid before the House last Session.—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the Motion of his noble Friend divided itself into two distinct and different branches. As to that part of it which referred to the production of Papers having reference to the alleged outrages, there was no objection to their production; but, of course, he would like to have an opportunity of selecting such as were important, as there were others which might not be worth having printed and circulated. What he had said to the deputation which he had received some days ago, and what he repeated now was, that beyond doubt there was evidence—evidence one regretted to see—that a most detestable traffic was carried on in those Seas. The case of the Daphne, if it were reported
  258
  correctly, was, perhaps, the very worst case of the kind that he had ever read of. Unfortunately, there were such great difficulties in the way of putting a stop to this traffic that it was almost impossible, under present circumstances, to hope for its complete suppression. The temptations were very great, the facilities for carrying on the traffic were considerable, the gains from it; were heavy, and there was the consideration that for years to come the Islands could not be under any settled government. All those circumstances were so many temptations to the persons who made use of those unfortunate islanders; and, in addition, there was a superstition which made the inhabitants unwilling to labour on their own Islands, and so made them the easier prey for those who carried them into actual slavery. Still he had to qualify what he had said upon the subject by observing that he-was in possession of evidence which showed that, on the whole, the Act passed in 1872 had been productive of good. The cases of conviction under that Act had been few; but there was reason to believe that it had deterred persons from carrying on and engaging in the traffic. There were two prohibitory enactments in that Act. The first prohibited the conveyance of those islanders in any British ship not specially licensed to take them on board. Two ships had been seized, and proceedings taken against the captains for a violation of that provision; but, it appearing that they had acted in ignorance, they were dismissed on payment of costs. The second portion of the enactment was more important—namely, a provision against the decoying of the islanders, which was made punishable as a felony. This portion of the Act had been applied in the Australian Colonics, where the tribunals showed every disposition to carry it into effect. He believed that there had been no failure of justice whore proceedings had been instituted under it before those tribunals. The case of the Carl, of which their Lordships had before heard, had been heard under another Act. As regarded the second part of his noble Friend's Motion, he was not in a condition to comply with it. The Papers included in it had reference to a Commission appointed to inquire into various matters relating to the Islands. The Commissioners were

  259
  either engaged in their work or completing it at the present time, and it appeared to him undesirable that confidential despatches should be produced before the Report of the Commissioners. "When the Report arrived there would be no objection to produce the other Papers. The question of annexation was an important one; but this was not the occasion to discuss it.
  Motion agreed to.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARRhaving presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures of the City of Edinburgh on the subject of Railway Accidents, moved for certain Correspondence in relation thereto. The noble Earl said he had been somewhat disappointed to find that the question of railway management formed no part of the programme of the Government for the present Session as disclosed in the Speech from the Throne. It was proposed to deal with the question of the transfer of land, with Friendly Societies, and with the law relating to Masters and Servants. He did not question the importance of these matters, but he doubted whether they ought to occupy so important a place as to exclude from the immediate consideration of Parliament, the subject of railway management. It was 310 exaggeration to say that feelings of alarm and apprehension had been raised in the public mind by the reports of railway accidents which had appeared in the newspapers, and those feelings had been much intensified by the Circular addressed by the Board of Trade. It was clear that the safety of life and limb was not sufficiently provided for. In the last six months 120 passengers had been killed, and 900 injured—and these figures, large as they were, applied to passengers only, and did not include railway servants. How many of these had suffered was not known, for the Returns were admittedly imperfect; but the Report of the Board of Trade for 1872 gave the number of railway servants killed at 632, and the injured at 1,395. He concurred in a statement contained in a Petition he had presented from Edinburgh, that the chief causes of railway accidents were to be found in long and uncertain hours
  260
  of labour, facilities for obtaining liquor, want of punctuality, and undue speed. Again, there was another cause which lay at the root of the evil—namely, an enormous increase of traffic without anything like a corresponding increase of the means of conveying it. The railway Returns for the last 12 months showed an increase of heavy traffic at the rate of 10 per cent for each week. In the year 1855, the total receipts from traffic were £24,000,000, but in 1872 they had risen to upwards of £60,000,000. The consequence was that the trains had to be run at the shortest possible intervals. At a recent inquiry it was stated that trains were started at intervals of only three or four minutes. 'Their Lordships were aware that even at the present time, tinder the Act compelling the companies to make Returns of the deaths and injuries sustained by their servants through accidents, those Returns were very imperfect. He must express a hope that the Government would give this most important question a very early consideration, otherwise we might be certain of the sacrifice of 500 more lives during the next six months. He did not wish to in any way embarrass the Government, but if they did not take some step to remedy the evil, he would feel it his duty to come forward with distinct propositions on the subject.
  Moved That there be laid before the House Copy of Board of Trade Circular to Railway Companies, dated February 1871, and the correspondence which followed thereon: Also for, Copy of correspondence between the Board of Trade and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company with reference to legal proceedings in consequence of default of return of accidents.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE, in reply, said, he would refer the noble Earl who had moved for the Papers, to Returns already on their Lordships' Table which would show that the Board of Trade had urged on railway companies the duty of furnishing correct Returns of the accidents which occurred to their servants, and the Board had done all in their power to obtain these Returns. The inquiry had been instituted by the action of the Board of Trade itself, and was not owing to any pressure from without. Subject to certain verbal alterations which he would point out to his noble Friend, there would be no objection to the production of the Papers.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONhoped some step would be taken by the Board of Trade to deal more vigorously with the subject of railway management, for at present it had very little power in respect of railways. Some time ago an accident occurred in the South of Ireland, on the Cork and Bandon line, and the Inspector of the Board of Trade who inquired into it, made as strong a Report against the Company as could well have been drawn up. He reported that the permanent way was in an unsatisfactory condition, and that the engines were old and worn out. When he read that Report he inquired of the Board of Trade what measures it intended to adopt; but to his astonishment he learnt that all the Board could do was to lay before Parliament the Report of its Inspectors. This Report of the Inspector showed the necessity for immediate interference, yet all that the Board could do was to lay it before the House. A change was therefore necessary, and he hoped the subject would receive immediate attention.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not think their Lordships could conveniently enter into the large questions of the cause and the prevention of railway accidents on a Motion the terms of which would not lead anyone to suppose that it was intended to raise those questions. They were of the last importance, and when the Motion of which the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) had given Notice came on, after Easter, noble Lords would, no doubt, be prepared to discuss them. He only rose to say a word or two in reference to the Returns made to the Board of Trade. The noble Earl who represented that Department in that House (the Earl of Dunmore) was quite right when he stated to their Lordships that the Board of Trade had made the greatest efforts to obtain the Returns from the railway companies; but there existed a great confusion in the public mind with respect to these Returns. There were two distinct classes of railway accidents—namely, accidents to the public as distinguished from accidents to the servants of railway companies. It could not be denied that up to this, the Returns with respect to the latter class of accidents had been incomplete, and therefore fallacious; but there was no reason whatever for supposing that we were not, and that we had not been for
  262
  years past, in possession of complete Returns as to accidents to the travelling public. There was not, until a very recent period, any Returns of accidents to railway servants—not, indeed, until the year before last, when he got an Act passed which made it compulsory on railway companies to furnish to the Board of Trade Returns of the deaths and injuries to their servants caused by railway accidents. He believed there was much exaggeration as to the imperfect character of the Returns furnished under that Act; but, at the same time, it was perfectly true that they did not contain the whole of the melancholy catalogue of those accidents. He believed, however, that the shortcoming of the companies in this respect was owing to the newness of the duty imposed upon them by the Act. The Board of Trade had done all they could to obtain complete Returns, but it was hardly to be expected that the thing could be done at once. In September last the Board of Trade instituted proceedings against the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company, which would have been continued, only that the Secretary came to the Board and apologized for the imperfect nature of the Returns, which, he said, was attributable solely to the newness of the Act, and the ignorance of the company's servants. He promised that every effort would be made in future to have the Returns full and complete. The Board of Trade had reason to think that the Returns made by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company before those proceedings were more deficient than those issued by any other company. He mentioned this circumstance because some ingenious gentleman, writing in the Press, comparing those Returns with the figures which, from his own inquiries, was led to believe ought to have been given by the company, and then went on to assume that there was the same difference between the number of accidents furnished by every other company and the number which it ought to have returned, He believed, however, there was no ground for that conclusion. He would venture to suggest to the Board of Trade that there was another class of Return which the companies ought to be required to furnish with punctuality. After the Sittings of the Committee presided over by the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Somerset) he introduced at the

  263
  end of last Session a short Bill, making it compulsory on railway companies to report the progress it made in the adoption of the block and interlocking systems. That Bill was passed, and he thought he might venture to say that when passing it the intention of the Legislature was to closely watch the progress of the companies, and ultimately to compel them to adopt those systems, if they did not of themselves gradually introduce them. It had boon shown that they could not be introduced on all lines in a week or a month, and therefore time was given to the companies; but he thought that if fair and rapid progress was not made in this respect, they ought to have recourse to compulsion. Regarding these Returns as of great importance, he hoped the Board of Trade would take care that they should be obtained and laid before the House as quickly as possible.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDexpressed his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, that it would be inconvenient at present to enter upon this large subject of railway accidents, and the difficulties which had arisen, and would probably arise regarding the safe carrying of the public. The question was a larger one than the noble Earl who had brought it forward had led them to expect by his Notice on the Paper. He could endorse all that had been said in reference to the Board of Trade. Under the late and previous Governments the Board of Trade had done everything in its power to obtain accurate information on the subject of railway accidents, and he did not hesitate to promise that the present Board would take care that the important Returns required by the Act introduced by the noble Lord should be duly sent in by railway companies.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Address for—
  "Copy of Board of Trade Circular to Railway Companies, dated November 1873, and the correspondence which followed thereon:—
  "Copy of correspondence between the Board of Trade and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company with reference to legal proceedings in consequence of default of Retain of Accidents: And also,
  "Copy of correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Edinburgh on the subject of certain Returns relative to Railway Accidents:"
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

RAILWAYS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in moving for Returns on the 1st of May of the number of persons employed on each of the railways of the United Kingdom (classified according to the nature of the work performed by them), said, those Returns, in addition to the Returns which the companies were already bound to furnish, would show the proportion between the number of railway servants injured and the total number employed. It might be said, by way of objection, that the publication of such Returns and of the comparisons of the two classes of figures, would be an interference between employers and employed. But who were the employers of railway servants? Their work was of such a nature that they were brought into direct communication with the public, and might be regarded in one sense as public servants. At all events, if they made any mistake leading to serious results, they would soon discover that they had two masters, for the railway companies would dismiss them, and the public would punish them for their neglect. In alluding to this aspect of the matter, he thought it right to say that he would be the last to come forward as a reckless declaimer against railway Directors. He believed that the more one became acquainted with the working and management of railway's, the more he would be able to appreciate the difficulties which railway Directors had to contend with in conducting the business of a railway. But the same acquaintance with the practical working of a railway which would reveal the difficulties which the Directors had to encounter would also reveal the difficulties which railway servants had to meet and overcome in the discharge of their duty—difficulties, too, which arose from no fault of their own. If the Returns for which he moved were granted, he indulged a hope that the information which they would afford might ultimately be of benefit to railway servants, and that they might also be useful in a wider sense as a contribution—although a humble one—towards the adjustment of certain large questions to which public attention was now being directed, among others the question of compensation to injured railway employés. In the discussion, too, of the still larger question

  265
  as to the future management of railways, there could be no doubt that the number of persons employed upon them would be an important, as it had often been a disputed, point.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsuggested that the Return should have reference to the 31st of December last.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENassented.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Returns of the number of persons employed on the 31st of December last on each of the Railways of the United Kingdom (classified according to the nature of the work performed by them).
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock to Thursday next, half-past Tcn o'clock.