Sitting of 11 May 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bishopric of Saint Albans [95].
Committee—Sale of Food and Drugs (re-comm.) [168]—R.P.
Third Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [154]; Offences against the Person [131], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—CITY OF NORWICH.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Lush, one of the Judges on the rota for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the City of Norwich. And the same were read.
METROPOLIS—MUSICAL PERFORMANCES ON GOOD FRIDAY—THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S LICENCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  469
  Whether his attention has been called to the prohibition by the Lord Chamberlain of the performance of sacred music in the theatres on Good Friday last; whether he can state to the House the reasons for this change in practice; and, whether the Government propose to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent in future such interference with the enjoyments of the people?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Lord Chamberlain's power with respect to performances of any kind, whether secular or sacred, on Good Fridays were defined by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68, and the licences for music were granted by the Justices under 25 Geo. II. c. 36. The Lord Chamberlain had made no change whatever in practice with regard to the issue of licences for stage plays. The following days had always been excepted from such licences:—Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Sundays. On these days theatres were unlicensed houses, and no performances for hire could lawfully be given within them, nor could the Lord Chamberlain grant a licence for performances in theatres on those days. If at any time there had been such performances, they had been given without his sanction or assent. There was no necessity for any fresh legislation for licensing music-halls and concert-rooms for the performance of music, as the magistrates had the power, if they thought fit to exercise it, excepting on Sundays.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Do the Government intend to take any step in the matter?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT—ADULTERATION OF BEER.—QUESTION.
MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case before a stipendiary magistrate at Stoke upon Trent, of a charge against a publican of selling beer adulterated with salt, in which it seems to have been taken for granted that the allowance for the presence of salt in beer of any strength is limited to fifty grains per imperial gallon; and, whether there is any such limit at present in force, either by statute or otherwise?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, there was a Schedule to the Act of 1872 which expressly stated that salt was an article of adulteration when used in beer. By the Act of 1874 that Schedule was abolished, and now the question of adulteration, even with salt, came under the general law with reference to the adulteration of drink and food. There was no statutory or judicial interpretation as to the quantity of salt which would necessarily adulterate beer. One of his predecessors in office was in communication some time ago with the Inland Revenue on the subject, and his decision seemed to have been this:—He wrote to the Inland Revenue stating that where the amount of salt in beer did not exceed a fixed quantity—say 50 grains per gallon—the Inland Revenue need not inquire whether such quantity had or had not been artificially added. In the case referred to, he was informed by the magistrates that the London analyst had found the quantity of salt used in the beer to have been 136 grains per gallon.

RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RODWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can inform the House as to the amount he expects to receive, during the present financial year, from the Railway Passenger Duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: £700,000, Sir.

COUNCIL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION—MEDICAL DIPLOMAS.—QUESTION.
MR. WADDYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If the Government has any information from the Medical Council of the success of attempts on the part of the medical examining bodies in the three divisions of the kingdom to form conjoint boards for giving diplomas that shall constitute a complete qualification in all branches of the medical art; and, if the Government, in the event of its not receiving or of not having yet received satisfactory information, is likely to bring in a Bill, or otherwise initiate legislation, with a view to remedy the present system of half-qualifications by nineteen competing bodies?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, we have no official information from the Medical Council on the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question; but I have reason to believe that attempts are still being made to form conjoint Boards for giving diplomas that shall constitute a complete qualification in all branches of medical art. How far these attempts may be successful we cannot yet say; but I may point to the Society of Apothecaries Act of last Session, and to the Bill respecting the College of Surgeons now before the House, as proofs that the matter is not being left alone by the medical bodies. The attention of Government has only quite recently been called to this subject, which is a very large and complicated one. I am not prepared, therefore, at present to state the views of Her Majesty's Government respecting further legislation.

GERMANY AND FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: By a printer's error the Question I am about to ask is not on the Paper. I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to make any re-assuring statement to the House with reference to the recent alarm as to the relations of France and Germany?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I may take the opportunity of stating that I have just now laid upon the Table of the House the Correspondence that has passed between the Governments of Germany and Belgium. In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I am happy to say that Her Majesty's Government has this morning received from Berlin assurances of a thoroughly satisfactory character, and we are of opinion that there is no further cause for apprehension as to the maintenance of European peace.

SALMON FISHERY ACT, 1873—THE SEVERN DISTRICT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether two inquiries at the public cost into the Bye-laws of the Severn District have been granted, and what other similar inquiries have been held at the public cost; whether an inquiry into the Bye-laws of the Wye District, made in 1874,
  472
  was refused at the public cost; whether any inquiry has been held into the Wye Bye-laws, and what has been the result; whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Correspondence which has passed between the Home Office and the Conservators of the Wye District; and, of the Reports of the Inspectors of Salmon Fisheries relating to the Wye Bye-laws?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that there had been two inquiries at the public cost—the first related to the size of the mesh to be used in fishing with nets; the second as to the use of nets for other fish than salmon. There had also been an inquiry in 1873, before the passing of the Fishery Act, at the public expense, and in the preceding year there had been a public inquiry into the general question. As to the Correspondence, he had no objection to lay a Copy of it on the Table, except that it happened to be very bulky, and he could not consent to produce only part of the Correspondence. He would lay the whole of it on the Table if the hon. Member moved for it.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, in that case he should move for the whole of the Correspondence on the subject.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS OF MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of an Adjutant of Militia signifying his intention of retiring before the 1st of October 1875, such retirement would be carried out at once; or, would he be permitted to remain, provided the brigade depôt was not formed, and he was recommended by his commanding officer and the Colonel of the Brigade Depôt to be retained until the depôt was formed.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that under the circumstances stated the adjutant would not be permitted to remain until the brigade depot was formed, but his retirement would be carried out as soon as his successor could be conveniently appointed. Perhaps he might be permitted to explain a statement he had made yesterday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), the purport of which appeared to have been somewhat misapprehended. The hon.

  473
  and gallant Member had asked him whether adjutants of Militia regiments who decline to avail themselves of the new retirement scheme would be required, as the alternative, to perform the duties of adjutants to brigade depôts at the head-quarters of the sub-district? To that Question he had replied that the adjutants of Militia who declined to avail themselves of the new retirement scheme would be required to perform all military duty the same as other officers belonging to the brigade depot, and that the appointment of adjutants to a brigade depôt did not exist under present regulations.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT CASTRO OR ORTON.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a letter in the "Morning Advertiser" of the 10th instant, purporting to come from the Tichborne Claimant, and stating that he was suffering from insufficiency of food and otherwise, and had been unable to get requisite food and medicine, Whether he has received any report from the authorities at Dart-moor as to the state of this convict; and, if so, whether he will inform the House thereon, and whether he will institute inquiry as to the statements contained in the said letter? The hon. Gentleman said, with the permission of the House he would read the letter to which he referred. ["No, no!"] He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether he should not be in Order in reading the letter, the substance of which he had not set forth so fully in his Question as was desirable. He could vouch for the authenticity of the letter, from which he would only read such extracts as would render his Question intelligible.
MR. SPEAKER: The reading of the letter cannot be necessary to make the Question of the hon. Member intelligible or to elicit the information he requires.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have seen the letter which purports to have come from the prisoner Thomas Castro, or whatever name the hon. Member chooses to designate him by, but my information is to the following effect:—The prisoner has fallen off considerably in weight since his conviction. This was naturally to be expected. The medical officer at Dartmoor states that the prisoner's weight is now of a healthy
474
standard for a man of his frame, although the reduction in weight had occurred somewhat too rapidly. The prisoner on the directors' last visit complained of mental and bodily suffering from the cold, but he made no complaint of insufficiency of food. The medical officer reported that he was now watching him carefully, but did not make any immediate recommendation. In case he does so his report will receive attention. There is no restriction whatever as to the supply of the medicine and food the medical officer thinks necessary to prescribe. The only recommendation the medical officer has made is in regard to a slight change in diet, and the prisoner has also been ordered rather more outdoor exercise than the other prisoners.

INDIA—BRITISH BURMA AND WESTERN CHINA.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all Correspondence respecting Trade between British Burma and Western China since 17th February 1873, between the Secretary of State for India and the Governor General of India, between the latter and the Chief Commissioner and Political Agent of British Burma, between the said Chief Commissioner and his Agents at Mandalay and Bhamo, between the Mandalay Agent and the Government of Burma, and between the Governor General of India and Her Majesty's Minister at Peking (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, "Rangoon and Western China," No. 258, of Session 1873)?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that he proposed shortly to lay upon the Table Papers giving the reason for the despatch of the expedition from British Burma to Western China, and also giving an account of the attack made upon the party. He thought that the Papers would include nearly all the Correspondence to which the hon. Member alluded.

THE JURY SYSTEM OF IRELAND—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the improvement of the Jury System of Ireland

475
during this Session; and, if so, at what date?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he was fully aware of the necessity for legislation upon this subject. For some months past a Bill had been drafted which was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session, and he had hoped to have introduced it before Easter. It had, however, occurred to him that it would not be advisable to place the Bill upon the Table without some prospect of a fair chance of proceeding with it. He had also felt that one important measure for Ireland at a time was enough. He still hoped to introduce the Bill during the present Session; but, looking at the state of Public Business and of the Notice Paper, his hope was not so sanguine on the point as it had been. Whether the greater question was or was not dealt with, it would be necessary to pass a short Bill similar to that of last Session, for the purpose of continuing for another year the existing Law on the subject.

ALKALI ACT, 1863—INSPECTION OF CHEMICAL WORKS, IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Local Government Boards for Ireland, under the Act of last Session, intend to appoint a Special Inspector for the four Chemical Works in Ireland, independent of the Inspectors at present acting under the Alkali Act, 1863?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that looking at the small number of chemical works in Ireland, there appeared to be no necessity for appointing special Inspectors for them.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the, right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would inform the House what Business will be taken on Thursday. In the hope that the original intention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the holidays may be fulfilled—namely, that they should extend from Thursday next to the Thursday in next week—I beg to ask, what will be the Business that will be taken on the
476
day that the House re-assembles after the holidays?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, what we propose is that on Thursday we should continue the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill in Committee, if it is not finished, which I trust it will be; and then we propose to proceed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bills relating to the National Debt, the Savings Banks, and the Inland Revenue. If there should be time to do so, we also propose to go into Committee on the Friendly Societies Bill. When we meet on Thursday week we intend to go into Supply.

DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES—SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will explain to the House upon what principle the Fishery Commissioners in Ireland have acted in defining the mouths of rivers, with respect to the right of putting out nets for the purpose of catching salmon; and whether the principle is the same in all the salmon fisheries in Ireland?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 92 the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries are empowered, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, to define or re-define the boundaries of the mouths of rivers, if after local inquiry they are satisfied of the expediency or necessity of such action. The principles on which they have acted in carrying out this power have had regard in all cases to the physical circumstances of the locality, without respect to the right of putting out nets for the capture of salmon.

PARLIAMENT—THE DERBY DAY—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown a Question, of which I have given him no Notice, but which probably he will be prepared to answer at once. It is, Whether it is his intention on this day fortnight to move that this House adjourn over the Derby Day?
  MR. DISRAELI: Really, I must consider this subject.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 154.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 154.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. BUTTsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time on that day six months. It was not his intention, at that stage of the Bill, to enter with any minuteness into the subject; but he felt it his duty to make that Motion, and to take a division upon it, by way of protest on his own part and on that of many Irish Members around him. Not only did they believe it to be unnecessary, but they objected to the form in which it was ultimately passing, continuing, as it did, for five years, powers over which the House would have no control during that period. The Bill, also, would outlive the House itself—a fact which, in his view, constituted a dangerous precedent. The continuing of the power of imprisonment for more than one year, whilst the writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended, was in itself a power so dangerous that he felt it his duty to divide the House upon the question before it, not with any expectation that he should be able to maintain a majority in favour of his Amendment, but with the intention of placing on record the protest of opponents.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Butt.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that all that had been urged by the majority of the Irish Members had not been wasted upon him; but he had felt it his duty to vote for the Bill on every occasion, and for this reason—that the majority of the Members for Ireland had, for a series of years, expressed an opinion that Ireland was not to be governed upon the same principles as the rest of the United Kingdom. They had demanded the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. They had expressed extreme satisfaction at the establishment of a different code of laws for land tenure for
  478
  Ireland, as distinguished from the landlord and tenant law which prevailed in England and Scotland, and they had appeared in that House as the representatives of an organization which distinctly intended to establish a system of Home Government in Ireland, different from that which prevailed in other parts of the United Kingdom. When the majority of the Representatives of one section of the Kingdom expressed a firm determination not to be governed according to the laws which prevailed in the other sections, he considered that the Legislature of the United Kingdom was justified in establishing a different system of Government for that section, according to the best judgment of the House, and the requirements of the case.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he did not mean to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but he had risen for the purpose of directing the attention of the House to the danger of passing a Bill of this kind. The offences against which it was directed were not specifically named or described in it; so much so that he ventured to say there were not 10 Members of the House who understood the Bill. It was, in fact, only to be understood by the careful study of several other Acts of Parliament—of no fewer than 12 other Acts—which were referred to in the first part of the Bill alone; but the reference to those Acts afforded to the readers of the Bill now before the House no information either as to the offences they created or the penalties they imposed. This absence of information on the face of the Bill was the more objectionable, as the penalties enacted by the Bill were for the most part directed against the lower and more ignorant classes; but it would in every case be necessary in order to understand the Bill, to refer to the statutes of which he had made mention, no information concerning whose provisions was contained in the Bill itself. In fact, those Acts had to be carefully read by everyone who desired to know what the present Bill meant. Though himself a lawyer of some years' standing, he did not profess to recollect what was contained in those Acts; and if it was possible that persons in his position should not know the law, it was only fair that the Bill should give the information which all were supposed to have who had to obey

  479
  the law. To do that might give rise to a little more trouble in drafting the Bill; but that was no reason why the Bill should not give full information as to the acts which might constitute offences against it and their consequences. The omission of which he had spoken had grown into a practice, and if it was persisted in—if previous enactments were to be embodied in Bills by simply stating the titles of the Acts which contained them—great public inconvenience must arise. Bills might be made a little longer by their being fully set out; and Her Majesty's Government might perhaps congratulate themselves on the rapidity with which they had got through this Bill; it had, in fact only occupied three weeks in Committee; but the discussions would not be greatly lengthened in consequence of adopting his suggestion, and all whom the law concerned would exactly know what it was.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he hoped the House would bear with him whilst he made a few remarks on the Bill; for though he was an Irish Member, he had as yet taken no part in the long discussions into which it had led them, and if he remained altogether silent upon it, his silence might be misapprehended. Having given his support to the Government on this Bill, he thought it only fair to his constituents that he should state the grounds upon which he had given that support, on all points of the Bill excepting one only, on which he had voted against the Government—that which gave the Government the power of keeping a man in prison for more than 12 months without his being brought to trial. He claimed this indulgence from his hon. Friends opposite, because he had before now proved that he was no friend to Coercion Bills. He had before now voted against their continued operation for more than 12 months; and last Session he declined to vote for including the Coercion Act in the Continuance Bill, on the ground that the House had had no authoritative statement from Her Majesty's Government as to the grounds upon which they desired the continuance of the statutes objected to. Who, indeed, he would ask, could be a friend to a Coercion Bill, except under the dire necessity of the case? None of them hiked to have to go back to their constituencies and tell them that
  480
  they had taken part in passing a Coercion Bill. It would not be a pleasant duty even for an English Member; and he claimed for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that he had not, throughout his whole career, shown himself in any way a friend of legislation of this kind. Finding these Acts, the work of his predecessors, on the Statute Book, he had felt it his duty to do that which the circumstances appeared to demand and to warrant; but in doing so the Government had entirely separated themselves from a policy of mere continuance. They had endeavoured, in the interests of personal liberty, to see what previous enactments of the kind they might dispense with, and, in the interests of order, to see what it was absolutely necessary for them to retain and to re-enact. It was well that that should be stated, in order that it might be understood in Ireland that the Bill had not been conceived in any spirit of hostility, or of undue repression, but that the most liberal and patriotic judgment had been exercised upon it. ["Oh!"] He would remind the House that in the Bill two of the most important provisions to be found on this subject in the Statute Book had been dispensed with—the Press Clauses and the "Curfew" Clause—the power of arresting suspicious persons at night. The power of search warrant lasting for three months had been cut down to the reasonable period of 21 days; the arbitrary power of the Lord Lieutenant to close public-houses without assigning any reason had been destroyed; the power of the police to arrest strangers in a proclaimed district had been entirely destroyed; and the absolute power given to the Attorney General to change the venue in criminal cases had been destroyed. Now, he would appeal to those who had formed hasty and censorious judgments upon this Bill, whether the Government were not entitled to the credit he claimed, and whether they were at all justified in describing this Bill as the perpetuation of a brutal and bloody code? The whole conduct of the Government in reference to the Bill was the best answer that could be made to such a charge. Every suggestion of amendment, no matter how hostile the source, received in the course of the debate the most careful attention from the Chief Secretary and the Solici-

  481
  tor General for Ireland. In Committee the Government had also made various material concessions, among which were these—Licences must now be granted by resident magistrates on the certificate of two justices; night domiciliary visits had been prevented; a warrant to search for arms must be executed in the presence of the responsible person to whom it was addressed; a restriction had been placed on the period of imprisonment on summary convictions, while hard labour in the case of those summary convictions had been done away with; and, last and most important concession of all, the right of having the writ of Habeas Corpus had been restored. It must, however, be understood, that these concessions had been made by the Government in no spirit of weakness or of vacillation. They had been fully debated and considered with fairness and candour, and the Government had shown their desire, while making the law a terror to evildoers, not to place any unnecessary inconvenience or restriction on the liberty of the subject. He had been struck with one observation which had been made by the hon. and learned Serjeant who had just sat down, and he thought the hon. and learned Member must have been joking when he made it. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the limited extent of the discussions on this Bill. Now, he was under the impression that this was the 12th sitting of the House upon which the Bill had been discussed for hours togother. He himself believed that there never was a discussion before which had been carried on so long without any attempt to restrict it. No attempt had been made to restrict the discussion on this Bill, in the smallest degree, or the extent to which the opposition was designed to go. No sort of impediment had been thrown in the way of fair and impartial consideration of every Amendment which had been placed before the House, even though the same Amendments had been repeated two or three times. At the same time, he did not hesitate to say he would have preferred to see two other alterations made in the Bill. He thought it an unfortunate circumstance that they should have to continue this Bill for a period of five years, and would much prefer that it should have been continued for only three years; but when asked to support its continu
  482
  ance for two years he felt that he could not conscientiously vote for a repetition of these discussions in so short a time. He believed, however, that many of the provisions of this Bill might be left with the greatest possible safety and satisfaction in the hands of the present Lord Lieutenant. The Duke of Abercorn was an Irishman, above all other things desiring the prosperity and welfare of the country; and he (Mr. Lewis) was sure he would not continue a proclamation a month longer than he believed to be necessary under his sense of duty, or by the requirements of public order. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, also, from the sympathy and cordiality with which he had entered into unquestioned Irish grievances, and the care with which he had attended to Irish measures, had entitled himself to the consideration and good feeling of his opponents. It was, undoubtedly, an embarrassing subject, and he had received from his constituents letters complaining of their being placed under these oppressive laws. Like good citizens, however, they had resolved to submit themselves to them, and to surrender their individual freedom, in the belief that the sacrifice was needed for the welfare of the State.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he thought that not more time than was necessary had been consumed in the discussion of a Bill which was to suspend for five years the constitutional liberties of the subject. He remembered that for a long time last year they were marched and countermarched through the Lobbies of the House on the clauses of the English Liquor Bill, and he did not believe that any honest, intelligent Englishman would grudge them an opportunity of expressing their views. The Prime Minister said, on the second reading of the Bill, that it was a measure of necessity framed in a spirit of conciliation. Why then did he ask to renew it for a period of unprecedented length? Nothing could show more clearly the increased confidence felt by all portions of the community, than the fabulous sums of money the farmers were willing to invest in land. A few years ago a farm of 50 acres, let at £3 an acre, was sold, and its occupation value obtained £1,500, or £30 an acre. Two years ago, another farm, 54 acres in extent, rented at 50 s. an acre, obtained for its occupation value on being sold £2,500, or £46 an acre. In

  483
  another instance last year, 7¼ Irish acres on a lease, of which 15 years remained, were sold for £540, or £77 per acre. It was in the face of facts like these that the Government asked the House to renew a Bill of this kind for a period of unprecedented length. He hoped that some better reason would be given for re-enacting this measure for a period of five years than the mere stifling discussion or avoidance of an unpleasant subject. He should certainly oppose the third reading of the Bill.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of following the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) into the various topics upon which he had addressed the House, but rather for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to certain points in the Bill which seemed to him to require notice. He would, in the first place, observe that there were many places in Ireland where two magistrates did not attend petty sessions. Without wishing to introduce sectarian considerations into the debate, he might further remark that in his own part of the country, though the large mass of the people were of the Catholic persuasion, to which he also himself belonged, they held opinions contrary to those of the magistrates. In the course of the debate many observations had been made on the Irish resident magistracy, and he should ill perform his functions as Member for an Irish county if he did not testify how much the Irish people owed to their resident magistrates for their administration of the law. For the satisfactory fulfilment of the duties of a magistrate it was absolutely necessary that such an officer should have a thorough knowledge of the habits of the people, and even of their wants and their thoughts; and the generally satisfactory administration of the law in Ireland was highly creditable to the magistracy of that country.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he had listened with some astonishment to the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). To use a French phrase, he thought he might say of him, "Il a perdu une belle occasion de se taire." If the hon. Gentleman had not spoken, he would not have supposed he had such poor reasons for the course which he said he had taken in reference to the Bill. Those who had
  484
  taken part in opposing the Bill had done so, because they believed it necessary to defend their constituents from a system of legislation which was certainly different from that which the House passed for England and Scotland. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire told them again, that they had concurred in passing the Disestablishment Bill. Those who passed that Bill, however, were the great Liberal Party, then in a majority, who bowed to the demands of the Irish people. Another charge that the hon. Member had brought against them was, that they desired that the Irish people should legislate for themselves. Why, that ought rather to be a cause of thankfulness to the hon. Member. Both parties alike ought to rejoice at being relieved from the necessity of bowing to the demands of Irish Representatives, and from a tyranny which he deemed so grievous. But in regard to the general policy of the Bill and the Ministry by which it was promoted, he had a large fish at the end of his line and he wished to play it a little. The noble Lord then read an extract from a speech of the Prime Minister, who speaking of the Coercion Bill of 1846, stated that in less than a century there had been no fewer than 17 Coercion Acts for Ireland, which might lead some persons to doubt whether violent legislation always proved efficacious; the Prime Minister further said that Bills of that description should always be accompanied by remedial measures, to redress the evils out of which the necessity had arisen, and that Ireland ought to be governed as nearly as possible on the same principles as England. In this case he must call on the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his own policy. He not only did not bring in any remedial measures himself, but helped to prevent the passing of others which Irish Members brought in for the benefit of Ireland, and his Government strangled the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Bill. He exonerated the right hon. Gentleman himself—he believed he hated Coercive Bills as much as anyone in that House, for nobody on the eve of the late General Election could have spoken more strongly, more violently, or even more ferociously, against such Bills; but he regretted to say that while the right hon. Gentleman had been silent and courteous throughout the progress of the present

  485
  measure, the only argument he had advanced to prove the existence of Ribbonism was, that those who believed in it ought to regale themselves by drinking dry champagne.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEdefended the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and said, that while others pretended to be ashamed of belonging to a nation which suspended the securities for personal liberty, he, for his part, should feel ashamed of belonging to a country in which men were shot down in the high road by ruffians with blackened faces who hid behind hedges, and then scampered away in safety, and he should feel still more so were he to live under a Government so weak and pusillanimous as to refuse to take steps to put an end to so monstrous a state of things. He believed if the hon. Gentlemen opposite, below the Gangway, had a Parliament of their own on College Green, it could not exist for a week or a day without passing a measure every bit as severe as that under discussion, in order to maintain the indispensable and primary condition of all Governments—safety to life and property. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had complained of the introduction of coercive measures without remedial measures; but he seemed to have forgotten that nearly the whole of last Session was spent in the consideration of remedial measures, and if Parliament had shrunk from granting Home Rule, it was only because it was averse to the dismemberment of the Empire.
  MR. RONAYNEsaid, it was perfectly true what the hon. Gentleman had just stated, that if there were an Irish Parliament in College Green, it would itself enact coercive measures if proved to be necessary, but under the English Government coercion was the normal state of things in Ireland. And it should be borne in mind that while a child might accept correction at the hands of its own parents, it resented being chastised by a neighbour. The whole history of Ireland showed that her people had never yet obtained a single concession except by disaffection and sedition. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen who knew nothing about the history of Ireland might cry "Oh, oh;" but he challenged them—as he had often challenged them before—
  486
  to point out a single concession which had been granted to Ireland during the last 100 years that had not been granted from the apprehension of an outburst of civil war or from some Imperial necessity. The people of Ireland had never obtained a single concession until the echoes of the guns in the Revolutionary War in America were heard here. Again, in 1792, when they asked for justice, the Relief Bill was thrown under the Table of the House; but no sooner was the declaration of war made by the French Directory in 1793 than all that was asked was at once conceded. In fact, he challenged them to go through the whole catalogue of concessions and point out one of them which had not been wrung from the fears of England or Imperial necessity. What had they now done? They had re-cast an Act which handed over the government of Ireland to the police, to the county magistrates, whom the Government itself did not trust, and to that cloaca maxima, the Castle of Dublin. In fact, the Irish people were deprived of their liberties by corruption and by force, and he did not at all wonder at the support given to this measure by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, for the noble Lord was then the Leader of a Party—a party of Constabulary, who indulged themselves in illegally breaking the skulls of the Queen's loyal subjects, holding a legal meeting in the Phoenix Park, and no doubt he appreciated the law that would allow him to do so with impunity. The Royal Irish Constabulary, however, were not a police, but a military force. They were very useful in rural districts where beaus were scarce, and they were excellent hands at organizing archery and cricket matches. They were toasted, too, at public dinners, after the Army and Navy, and he had suggested to many of his friends in the Army and Navy who drank this toast that an equally deserving force with which many of them were more familiarly acquainted, the sheriffs bailiffs, should be similarly toasted. Government did not trust the Irish magistrates, and the Irish magistrates did not trust the Government.
  MR. WADDYexpressed an earnest hope that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) would not insist on a division. He thought it would be a most melancholy thing for the House

  487
  to divide on the present occasion, especially after the speech of the hon. Member who had just preceded him—a speech which he had, with great sorrow, to submit would do more harm than all the concessions of the Government would do good. That speech forced him to admit that we could not dispense with Coercion Bills in a country of which even the intelligent, benevolent, and educated men could be found capable of making use of language so wild and violent. Every clause, he might say every word, of the Bill had been debated, and the Irish Members had had full scope in bringing forward their Amendments, which he did not hesitate to believe were sincere. But there could be no doubt as to what the result of a division would be, and he thought it would conduce to the existence of good feeling between Ireland and England if matters were not pushed to that extremity. It was a very undesirable thing to give a factious opposition to the third reading of the Bill. [Murmurs.] A division now would, he maintained, be regarded by the country as a flag of defiance rather than as a honourable expression of opposition to the Bill, and it would compel hon. Members who, like himself, had assisted the Irish Members to go into the Lobby against them.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that, as he recognized in the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Waddy) a friend to the Irish people, he had listened with great attention to the observations he had made. The only question at issue with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Ronayne) was upon a matter of historical accuracy, and he had yet to learn in what particular it was violated by his hon. Friend. It was certainly true that the Duke of Wellington, when Prime Minister, in introducing the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, asked the House of Lords to pass that Bill in order to avert a threatened civil war in Ireland. Was it not also a fact that another Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), stated when canvassing Lancashire, that his attention had been drawn to the grievances and oppressions of Ireland by the intensity of Fenianism. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) had defended this Bill on the ground of the facility with which landlords were shot behind hedges in Ireland. The hon. Member evidently thought that it was the rule in
  488
  Ireland to watch for landlords and to shoot them behind hedges. Now, he contended that was not the rule in Ireland. It had been sufficiently established during these discussions, and had been, indeed, admitted by the Government, that no language of that kind could accurately describe the present state of Ireland. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not turn a deaf ear to the appeal made to him by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu), and that he would remember his declaration that a coercive measure for Ireland ought to be followed by remedial measures. Several opportunities would arise in the course of the Session—as, for example, upon the further discussion of the Bill relating to compulsory sobriety in Ireland, the reclamation of waste lands, &c.—when the right hon. Gentleman could act up to the spirit of this declaration. He made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with the more confidence because he had introduced for the first time a Coercion Bill, the provisions of which would remain in force for a period of five years.
  MR. JOHN GEORGE MACCARTHYsaid, that as the Irish Members would probably be outvoted in the division, he would respectfully but earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government to make the measure as little injurious and obnoxious to the feelings of the people as possible. He would also say for himself and others who acted with him, that they would endeavour, each in their several spheres, to reduce as much as possible the discontent and dissatisfaction which they knew would arise from a measure forced upon Ireland in spite of the opposition of its Members. He trusted that a Coercion Bill would not be the only message and gift sent to Ireland by Her Majesty's Ministers.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 287; Noes 70: Majority 217.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I believe that an alteration is necessary in the title of the Bill, and I move to insert, after the word "Ireland," the words, "and to grant an indemnity in certain cases."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHdid not consider the words necessary, but would not object to their insertion in the title, as they could not do harm.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.

  [BILL 95.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. RICHARD, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said: Sir, I wish, at the outset of the observations I intend to address to the House, to refer to an objection which may probably, and not unnaturally, have occurred to the minds of many hon. Gentlemen on seeing the Amendment I am about to move standing in my name. It may be thought that, as a Nonconformist, I have no right to meddle in a matter that relates to the internal organization and government of the Church of England. But then, unfortunately, in the eye of the law, we are all members of the Church of England, whether we like it or no, and cannot shake ourselves free from that relation and the obligations it involves. Besides which, we must remember that Parliament is the supreme Governing Body of the Church of England, and we, upon whom this high function devolves, are bound to fulfil it according to the best exercise we can of our judgment and conscience. I acknowledge the anomaly. I confess that it appears to me a flagrant absurdity, that a Body constituted as this House is—and it cannot be otherwise constituted, if it is to be a fair representation of the people of this country—a House consisting of members of the Church of Rome, of the Greek Church, of Presbyterians of various denominations, of Independents, Baptists, Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists, members of the Society of Friends, Unitarians, Jews, and I know not how many other forms of religious faith or no faith, should have committed to it the duty of regulating everything pertaining to the
  490
  faith and practice, to the doctrine, discipline and worship of a Protestant Episcopal Church. With my conception of what a Christian Church is or ought to be, this is a condition of things which is to me inexpressibly painful and deplorable. And I have no doubt that there are many thoughtful and earnest members of the Church of England in this House who are deeply distressed by it, and would gladly, if they could, find some way of escape. I remember the right bon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) some years ago, under the pressure of this difficulty, suggesting that the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist Members of the House might be asked to abstain from taking any part in discussing and voting on questions connected with the Church of England. But that, of course, was only a momentary thought, extorted by the sense of embarrassment which he felt, for the right hon. Gentleman could not have seriously meant that we should divide ourselves in this House into sections or large Committees, according to our religious belief, for in that case we should claim reciprocity. If Roman Catholics and Nonconformists are to abstain from taking part in discussing and deciding Church of England questions, then the members of the Church of England must in like manner abstain from interfering in questions affecting the rights and interests of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. I remember, also, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), on the same or a similar occasion, saying that ecclesiastical legislation has become very difficult in this House, and that it may become impossible. But all this is inevitable so long as we have the Church connected with the State. For, as Bishop Warburton says—
  "The Church has resigned her independency, and made the magistrate her supreme head, without whose approbation she can direct, order, and decree nothing."
  Such being the ease, what can we do when matters of this kind are thrust upon us—for thrust upon us they are—without any will of our own? I can say, with all sincerity, that it is no pleasure to me to have to discuss questions of this nature in this House; because I feel it is very difficult to do so without wounding the susceptibilities of hon. Gentle-

  491
  men, whose conscientious convictions differing from mine, I wish to treat with honour and respect, and between whom and myself there are, I have no doubt, many points of sympathy on matters of far greater importance than those pertaining to ecclesiastical polity and organization. I wish to say, that in opposing this Bill I have no special antipathy to Bishops. I may not look upon them in the same light as many hon. Members of this House probably do. I do not believe that diocesan Episcopacy was any part of primitive Christianity, but rather an excrescence that has grown upon it since. Neither do I believe—though I am far from wishing to treat with ridicule, or disrespect those who do—in those mystic spiritual powers which Bishops are supposed to possess, and to be able to communicate to others. Still, as Pope says—
  "Even in a Bishop I can spy desert."
  There are many Bishops of the Church of England whose names and memories I hold in as deep veneration as anyone in this House. The names of such men as Hooper and Latimer, of Leighton and Usher, of Taylor and Beveridge, or Berkeley and Butler, and many others who, by their saintly lives, or their admirable writings, have rendered inestimable service to the cause of Christianity in this land. But I object to this Bill, because it asks this House to concur in perpetuating and extending the creation of a class of politico-ecclesiastical State officials, whose existence, in my opinion, is not to the advantage of either Church or State. That an Episcopal Church should have Bishops, and have them in sufficient number to meet all its requirements, is a position so obvious that it admits of no doubt, and needs no argument. And, perhaps, nothing more shows the utterly crippled and helpless condition of the Church of England, than the fact that, though it has been in existence for upwards of 300 years, it has made only one addition to its Episcopate in the whole of that time. Compare this with the state of things in the United States of America. There is an Episcopal Church in that country—and a vigorous and flourishing Episcopal Church—of which the venerable Dr. Pusey says that—
  "Severed from the protection of the State, it first struck root when it was deprived of all human
  492
  support, and long ago it quadrupled, while the population doubled only."
  In 1830, the number of dioceses in the United States was only 12. Now it is 41, besides 9 missionary Bishops, the sphere of whose operations is also, I believe, in their native country; while, as I have already said, with one exception, no addition has been made to the number of English Bishops for more than 300 years. Why is this difference? The reason is perfectly simple. One is a free Church, and can expand and adapt itself to the growth of population and the changing circumstances of the times; while the other is a Church in bondage to the State; and in this—as in a hundred other matters, is "cabbined, cribbed, confined" by that relation. I have been told by some hon. Members since my Notice has appeared on the Paper, that this is only an act of the Episcopal Church to extend and perfect its own organization. If it had been that, not one word would have fallen from my lips in opposition to it. But it is as far as possible from being that. In fact, the Church has nothing to do with it. It has no part or lot in this matter. It has no voice in the new adjustment of dioceses, no voice in the re-distribution of patronage, no voice in the election of the new Bishop. The new Bishop will be a State official, and although not sitting for the present in the House of Lords, he will have the right to do so in rotation, and that gives a political character to the appointment, which will, no doubt, be influenced—as most such appointments are—by political motives. For, how are Bishops appointed? Of course, by the Prime Minister, and very generally for political reasons. One of the Ecclesiastical journals says—
  "A Bishop is a mere nominee of the Crown or Prime Minister: comes to his flock as a governor appointed over them without their concurrence or consent. What amount of cordial sympathy can he expected to exist between pastor or people in this state of mutual relationship? The pastor, only too naturally, fails to feel any responsibility towards those who have not reposed their confidence in him hy choosing him as their leader and guide, or even by consenting to his appointment. But he does feel—and the less fervent his piety the more keenly does he feel—a sense of the responsibility towards the power that did nominate him for consecration. Hence we ever find, with rare and noble exceptions, Bishops siding with the Crown or Parliament against the real spiritual needs

  493
  their flocks, sympathizing with Acts of Parliament, out of sympathy with zeal."
  And although for the present the appointment is to be made by Her Majesty the Queen, by Letters Patent, yet as the Bill evidently contemplates the ultimate creation of a Dean and Chapter, we shall then have the shocking profanation of an election by the congé d'elire, when the Dean and Chapter solemnly meet to invoke the Divine guidance to enable them to choose a chief pastor of the diocese, when the choice has been already made for them by the Prime Minister, and that choice is imposed on them in so peremptory a fashion that, in ease of refusal, they are liable to heavy penalties—such as forfeiture of land and imprisonment. But there is another objection I have to this Bill, and there I have a distinct. locus standi as a Nonconformist—that is, that it proceeds on the assumption that practically, as well as theoretically, the whole population of this country are members of the Church of England. The promoters of an increased Episcopate always quite coolly take this for granted. They point to a particular district or country, which has so many hundreds of thousands of souls, and they say, there is only one Bishop to take care of all these souls, while it is perfectly well known to everybody that there are millions of people in this country—I am sure it is no exaggeration to say more than one-half of the church and chapel-going population—who have renounced their allegiance to the Church, and who, therefore, do not require, and will not accept, Episcopal supervision. Now, as a Nonconformist, I protest against keeping up this fiction. Take, for instance, the case of Cornwall. Much was made in "another place" of the destitution of Cornwall, when a similar Bill to this was under discussion. It was said that another Bishop was imperatively demanded for that part of the country. And immediately the Lord Lieutenant of the county got up in his place and declared that they did not want any Bishop, as the great bulk of the people were Nonconformists. This view of the matter has been so forcibly put in an article which appeared a few weeks ago in The Times, that I ask permission of the House to read a few sentences from it. After referring to some objections made
  494
  by Lord Shaftesbury to Lord Lyttelton's Bill, the article proceeds—
  "But if Lord Shaftesbury seems to go a little further than becomes a professed Churchman, the great majority of the inhabitants of these Isles, for one reason or another, go a good deal further in their objection to any functionary who assumes to combine in his own person spiritual with political power and authority. They do not like being any wise committed to it, even if themselves be absolutely protected against it, and their body, soul, and estate, be in no wise threatened. The feeling of a Nonconformist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic is that if a man choose to call himself the Bishop of Colchester, we will say, and is so called by his co-religionists, they have no objection; but they do object to their representatives in Parliament giving any national sanction to the exclusive assumption of that character. If we suppose any town or district where one form of Dissent or any other now seems in full possession, it may very consistently object to Parliament permitting anybody to claim, by his very title, authority over the souls whose lot is cast within those boundaries."
  But does anybody want more Bishops of the same type as those now existing? I fail to see any evidence of that. Who wants them? Certainly, not the Nonconformists, who refuse to acknowledge their authority or to accept their services. But do members of the Church of England ask for more? I believe that considerable machinery has been set in operation to get up Petitions in favour of an increased Episcopate. But in the last Report of the Committee on Public Petitions it would appear that the Petitions hitherto presented had an aggregate number of signatures not amounting to quite 3,000. But the best proof that there is no demand for more Bishops is the Universal dissatisfaction expressed by all parties in the Church with the present Bishops. And what renders this the more striking is the fact that no one pretends to deny that the Gentlemen who occupy the Bench are not only gentlemen of irreproachable personal character, but of most exemplary diligence in the discharge of their laborious duties. And yet how are they spoken of by the organs of the various parties in the Church? I will take first The Standard, which is understood to be the organ of the Conservative Party generally. In 1864, that journal said—
  "The Bench of Bishops is filled with the Ministers' creatures who openly avow, with an elasticity of conscience to which only Episcopacy can attain, that they are bound to vote even for a falsehood, rather than not magnify their makers."

  495
  Then take the organs of the High Church Party generally. I find in The Church Times these words—
  "There is probably no body of men in the world who, so far as outward evidence goes, care less for the furtherance of religion than the English Bishops."
  The same journal in April, 1868, said—
  "A sad and lengthened experience has taught us that there is little to be hoped for from the present Bench of Bishops, when cowardice and unfaithfulness prompt the evasion of a plain duty."
  The Church Herald again, the organ of another section of the High Church party, says—
  "There never was a time when the members of the Episcopal body were held in less respect and repute than at present, or when their power to control the clergy except by legal process was so weak."
  And what makes the fact of the existence of this feeling among the class represented by The Church Times and The Church Herald more significant and remarkable is the fact that they regard the Episcopal office with an almost idolatrous veneration. I remember when the Oxford Tracts first appeared, they spoke of the Bishops in language that seemed to me, I own, to be extravagant. They said—
  "The Bishops stand in the place of the Apostles so far as the office of ruling is concerned; and whatever we ought to do, had we lived when the Apostles were alive, the same ought we to do for the Bishops. He that despiseth them despiseth the Apostles."
  Again, addressing the clergy—
  "Exalt our holy Fathers, the Bishops, as the representatives of the Apostles and the Angels of the Churches, and magnify your office as being ordained by them to take part in their ministry."
  And yet, in spite of this profound reverence for the office, such as I have quoted is the language they use in reference to those who now fill that office. There is another powerful Party in the Church, the Evangelical Party. The judgment pronounced by the organs of that Party is no less emphatic. Thus I find The Rock speaking in 1869—
  "Do our Bishops sit in the House of Lords to maintain the rights of their Order? If so, they have betrayed them. Do they sit there to maintain the cause of the Established religion which they profess? This, too, they have betrayed with the spirit of a craven, and with a baseness that has no parallel in the annals even of Paganism. Do they sit there as the guardians of the Protestant interest, of a Protestant Empire? These, too, they have betrayed, and not only
  496
  betrayed, but have thrown the full weight of their position and power into the opposing scale of Popery."
  The same unfortunate journal, on another occasion, speaks in the following accents of despair:—
  "The life of a Protestant journalist, always one of constant labour and anxiety, is rendered doubly harassing by the action of the Bishops. One or other member of the Episcopal Bench is for ever doing something that he, if faithful to his Ordination vows, ought not to have done, or leaving undone something that, as the overseer of a Protestant Church, he ought to do. And all this while there be some amongst us who raise the cry of 'More Bishops,' to which the nation's response will shortly be, 'Save us from those we have.'"
  The Record, another important organ of the same party, said in 1869—
  "The Prelates have acted in direct opposition to the cause of Protestantism, and instead of maintaining', like their forefathers, a firm protest against 'the Man of Sin,' they have invited the bitter gibes of Liberationists, who have said that the 'almighty dollar,' and not Christian Protestantism, is now the watchword of the Bishops."
  And in regard to the latest act of the Bishops—the issue of their allocution on the state of the Church—I find one of the Church journals, The Church Herald, giving a sort of résumé or summary of the judgment pronounced by the whole Ecclesiastical Press of the country on this act, which is represented as one of universal dissatisfaction. It gives extracts from The Guardian, Record, John Bull, Church Times, Church Review, Church News of Scotland, and Literary Churchman, and then sums up the whole in the following words:—
  "Whatever this response may reveal as to the relations between the clergy and the laity, it leaves no doubt upon another matter which is hardly of less importance. It makes it unmistakably clear that the great alienation under which we are suffering is that of the whole Church, clergy, and laity alike, from the Bishops. It is manifest that all confidence in them is gone—happily not as Bishops, but only as men. Their office was never so highly esteemed as at present, and it may be added that their inherent claims as Catholic Bishops were never so firmly established. But no one trusts them. The all but universal judgment upon them (and of course as we are all compromised by their proceedings, we are all entitled to form one) is that their rule is not equitable and impartial, that their speeches and letters are not straightforward and truthful, and that, being the Church's highest officers, they are, unhappily, too ready to sacrifice her rights and claims, and even her doctrine, to popular clamour or for the sake of standing well with the world."
  Now, I offer no opinion as to the cor-

  497
  rectness or justice of these opinions. I merely refer to them as indications of the state of feeling that exists in the Church itself in regard to the existing Bishops, and as a strong presumption that at least there is no desire for an increase of the same class of Bishops. But I think I have proof that there is not merely indifference, but positive hostility against the present projects for an increased Episcopate. Some one has sent me a paper containing an account of a remarkable meeting lately held in Exeter, and Exeter is a sort of Mecca of Episcopacy. We are told that it was called by a circular largely signed by laymen and clerics belonging to all schools and parties in the Church. After long consultation the conclusion in thus stated—
  "In the discussion which followed the greatest unanimity was evinced as to the scandalous injustice involved in the present mode of appointing Bishops, and as to the particular injustice contemplated in Lord Lyttelton's Bill by denying to Churchmen any voice in the election of the Bishops of the new Sees for which Churchmen are expected to provide funds. The meeting was also unanimous in considering that now or never was the time for the Church to assert her right in this matter. Indeed, the only difference of opinion was as to whether the demand should not he made applicable to the whole system of appointing Bishops, instead of being confined to the new Sees to be created under the Bills of Lord Lyttelton and Mr. Cross, and ultimately an Amendment, placing the demand on the broad and general basis, was carried by a large majority."
  With regard to the particular arrangements made under the Bill, I have not much to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in introducing the measure, was eloquent as to the generosity of the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester, the one for giving up his country, and the other his town residence to form the nucleus of a fund for the endowment of the new Bishopric. He said that it was really a gift offered to the Church by the Bishops. With all respect this does not appear a very accurate description of the matter. These Bishops at most had only surrendered their interest in two residences during their term of office. Beyond that, they were merely liberal with other people's property. Why, Danbury, the residence of the Bishop of Rochester, was bought for him or his predecessor some 30 years ago by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for £28,157. And with regard to the great sacrifice made in re-
  498
  gard to these houses, one of the clerical journals says—
  "Great praise has been bestowed upon Dr. Harold Browne and Dr. Claughton for their very generous and most noble offers; but the truth seems to be that the palaces which they have offered to give up are of the nature of white elephants—that is to say, of possessions which, in the present state of Episcopal incomes, are rather an embarrassment than a benefit."
  Besides which, each of them gives up £500 a-year, not from his own salary but from the salary of his successor to augment the income of the new Bishopric. So that their generosity rather reminds one of the inscription which some wag placed on a bridge built by a Mr. Brown—
  "Mr. Brown, of his great bounty,
  Built this bridge at the expense of the county!"
  Some years ago, an attempt was made to increase the Episcopate. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) opposed it in so powerful and convincing a speech that he seems for the time to have defeated theproject. That, like the present project, did not propose to ask any money direct from the coffers of the State for endowing the new Bishoprics, but to do so by manipulating existing ecclesiastical funds. The ground taken by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was ground which I think may be fitly taken by conscientious Churchmen on the present occasion. He contended that if they had funds at their disposal by the better administration of ecclesiastical property, the money could be turned to better account in the augmentation of small livings, than in the creation and endowment of new Bishops. He stated some most startling facts as to the condition of the working clergy; and although, no doubt, much improvement has taken place since then, there is still ample room for further improvement in this matter. Canon Gregory, at a meeting of the Curates' Augmentation Fund, lately held at Willis's Rooms, stated that there are 1,742 beneficed clergy who receive only £100 a-year; 2,035 who receive between £100 to £150; and 1,796 between £150 and £200. So that there are 5,573 beneficed clergy whose income is below, or only £200 a-year. The condition of the curates is still worse, and this being so, if you can economize anything out of the revenues of the Church, is not this

  499
  a better direction for its use than in the multiplication of Bishops? When I consider the formidable assaults that are made in these days upon the foundations, I will not say, of the Christian religion, but of all religious faith, so that men's minds are filled with trouble and anxiety on the most important of all questions, and then see how those who are, or who claim to be, the official representatives of the national Christianity, omitting the weightier matters of the law, are busying themselves with what I call the "mint and anise and cummin" of religion, with questions of postures, and gestures, and garments—when I think of the masses of our population that are lying outside the pale, I will not say of the Church of England, but, unhappily, of all our Churches—and I could quote an eloquent passage to this effect from a book lately published by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), a book in the views of which I do not agree, but which I have read with admiration of its ability, learning, and temper; and when I further think of the hundreds—nay, thousands—of the working clergy of the Church of England—godly, learned, and laborious men, who are leading a life of pinching penury which it is most painful to contemplate, and then hear the cry for more Bishops, more Bishops for the House of Lords, more Bishops for whom large salaries and sumptuous palaces must be provided, and who have to be clothed in purple and fine linen, I feel inclined to say—
  "Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istia Tempus eget."
  I have no wish to put any obstacle in the way of the increased efficiency of the Church as a spiritual institution. On the contrary, I can with my whole heart wish it God-speed in all work of this nature that it is doing. But if the Church of England wishes really to develop its forces—and I believe there are great forces capable of development in that Church—it can only be on one condition, and that is freedom—freedom from that entangling alliance with the State which cripples its energies, sullies its purity, compromises its dignity, impairs its efficiency, and gives rise to many occasions of scandals, which bring reproach, not on the Church only, but on our common Christianity.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Richard.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman, from his own point of view, was right in his general argument at first; but he strayed away from the points with which he had a right to deal when he brought forward trumpery rubbish from old articles in The Rock and The Church Herald, as if they were the voice of the real parties in the Church of England. As a High Churchman he repudiated The Church Herald, and he would like to see any member of the great Low Church party get up and say he was not ashamed of The Rock. If he had cared to come down with his pockets stuffed with all the little contemptible so-called religious organs of the various sects of Nonconformists, he could easily have capped any of those quotations which the hon. Member had given, or could give, from the most flimsy utterances of any little section in the Church of England, by language even more outrageous from those foolish periodicals, and equally written to sell and not to convince. If they wanted the real opinion of the English Church they must look elsewhere. The question must be treated on a broader ground; and in occupying it, the hon. Gentleman had, in fact, destroyed his own argument by his candour in appealing to them to look upon the Church as a spiritual organization. His contention answered itself, because he failed to disprove that this Bill was intended to develop in the truest sense the spiritual organization of the Church of England. The Church of England was an Episcopal Church, by which was meant that it considered Bishops to be an integral portion of the Christian ministry: working ministers with definite religious duties as much as the pastors of any congregation. So by the essential principles of that Church, a Bill to increase the Episcopate was a Bill to strengthen the Christian ministry. The hon. Gentleman rode off by denouncing Bishops as pompous worldlings, and tried to derogate from the unselfish generosity shown by two of that body in respectively offering to give up a town and a country house, on the score that those were only official residences, as if the abandonment of an official residence was not a personal sa-

  501
  crifiee to an office holder who was living in it. The hon. Member had no right to bring such charges against the Episcopate, before he could prove that the Bishops of our Church had not largely and habitually contributed out of their own means, and even sacrificed their own private fortunes for the good of the Church. He had found much comfort for his opinions in some spasmodic resolutions passed at a meeting at Exeter. Now, no Bishop had in his lifetime the character of being more prelatic than the late Bishop of Exeter, but whatever might have been thought of the theological opinions of Bishop Phillpotts, of his splendid munificence there could be no doubt; and when he remembered the gigantic, unresting work of a Wilber-force, and the deep learning of a Thirlwall, he could not patiently listen to comparisons between the general body of the clergy and the Bishops, as if the latter were rich drones and the parish clergy the only people who sacrificed life, health, time, and comfort to the service of their Lord and Master. It could not be denied that this Bill was a private re-arrangement within the lines of the Church of England of its own resources, and in that character it ought to be safe from such opposition as had been offered to it. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) took the present Bill as it stood, and he thanked all who had been concerned in bringing it forward. He said that with the more feeling, because he had himself charge of another measure which had been carried through the House of Lords by his noble Friend Lord Lyttelton, and which he hoped would be accepted in that House also. He saw no discrepancy between the two Bills, which had the same object of increasing the efficiency of the Episcopate. They were drawn on different lines; but the lines were parallel, not clashing. This measure provided for a peculiar and exceptional want, which there were peculiar and exceptional means to meet; and the other provided for no new Sees by name, while it supplied a general machinery for the creation of new dioceses when means were forthcoming from private sources. The ancient See of Rochester, having by the growth of London been brought close to the metropolis, it was an eminently practical step to make a Bishopric of South London attached to Rochester. Surrey was
  502
  now partly a rural and partly an urban county, and wherever the great community of London had surged over and spread itself, those old county distinctions had disappeared, and the Capital only remained to be treated in its great unity by all the special appliances needed to provide for the spiritual necessities of the population. Rural Surrey still remained attached to the old princely See of Winchester, and he thought it well that, for the present, at least, that famous diocese should retain so much of its former amplitude. Rochester, too, had a magnificent Cathedral and great traditions, and there was already a teeming Kentish London under its administration, and these considerations justified placing urban Surrey under the charge of the Bishop of Rochester. He had ventured to make these remarks because he believed that a feeling natural in itself, though, he thought, overstrained, had shown itself in some Surrey quarters against any dismemberment of the county. Essex and Hertfordshire, which had been by the strange management of Church reformers in the bygone generation, joined to the diocese of Rochester, were clearly marked out as fitting space for a Bishopric, even if the area had not contained a church so historical and artistic as the Abbey Church of St. Albans. There was there the largest church in the Realm, and one of the grandest, which marked the spot where the first Christian blood in the Island was shed. On that spot, the historical, the practical, and the sentimental met, and such a place was eminently fitted to become the head-quarters of a new diocese. If Surrey wanted a Bishop Lord Lyttelton's Bill showed the way to provide one. Let that Bill become law, and the Surrey people would then only have to find the means. Surrey could thus become a diocese with its cathedral at St. Saviour's, and West Kent would be quite a sufficient area for the pastoral care of the Bishop of Rochester. But in the meantime, let the friends of the Church take the good thing that was offered in the present measure, and seek to supplement it by the wider provisions of the pending enabling Bill. He thanked Her Majesty's Government for this good beginning, and he trusted to see further progress made in the same direction.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was one of those who concurred in

  503
  the conclusions at which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had arrived, although from different and almost opposite reasons. He had never been in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England, which he had always thought had been a great advantage to the country, because the Church of England was regulated, governed, and, he might almost say, created by Parliament and the State. The reason why he should support this Bill was that, in the most distinct manner, it pointed out that situation of the Church of England. The reason that he approved of this Bill was that it was founded on what was sometimes attacked as Erastianism. But for this Bill there could be no Bishop of St. Albans. His appointment and authority were to be regulated by Act of Parliament, and the nomination was to be made by the Chief Officer of the State in this country. That might be a right or a wrong theory. He thought it a right theory, and he should approve the Bill. The Bill having proposed to create a Bishopric by Act of Parliament, and a Bishop by patent, proceeded to lay down other regulations which were to be made by the Queen in Council. Now anything more accurate than that constitutional view of the nature of a national Church, he thought, it would be impossible to conceive. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) pointed out that the Church had nothing to say to the Bill; that neither Convocation nor the clergy generally had been asked their opinion as to whether there should be a new Bishop or not, or as to where the new Bishopric was to be situated. That very fact, however, furnished the strongest possible vindication of the argument of those who maintained that the assent of Convocation was not necessary in such cases. The Bill, in short, brought forth in the clearest way the principles on which Church legislation was really founded. It asserted the absolute authority of Parliament that it was the prerogative of Parliament to deal with the affairs of the Church on its own authority without consulting the clergy or anybody else. But for the very same reasons for which he should give his support to the present measure, he should certainly object to that roving Bill for the creation of impecunious and eleemosynary Bishoprics
  504
  throughout the country which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) was about to bring under the notice of the House. The Bill under discussion seemed to him to be a practical proposal founded on sound principles, assuming the propriety—a question which ought not to be argued on that occasion—of the existence of an Establishment. Whether or not an establishment was capable of being defended, they ought not to argue the question on a Bill like that. This was not a question of whether they were to help a Bishopric by holding a bazaar, or handing the hat round. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. B. Hope) in his disapproval of the use which had been made of the extracts from newspapers. Prom his experience of the semi-religious and semi-ecclesiastical papers, he should think that they were among the most foolish to be found among the periodical press. Reference had been made to the language used in The Standard newspaper in the year 1864, and though he did not remember all the leading articles which for 20 years past had appeared in The Standard he should judge that the language referred to was used the morning after some Party division, in which the Bishops had voted on the wrong side. He should rather choose to refer to a more recent copy of that paper, and take the number which appeared the other day, in which that well-informed journal stated that the only two Bishops who voted were in favour of the Government Army Bill, and on that occasion The Standard expressed a more favourable opinion than it had set forth so many years previously, and therefore he did not think they ought to judge the authorities of the Church by extracts picked out of newspapers in such a manner. An objection had been made to the appointment of the Bishops being intrusted to the Minister of the day. But who was the Minister of the day? He was a person elected by a majority of the Representatives of the people, and the object of placing the appointment of the Bishops in his hands was that their election should be made in accordance with the national sentiment. He believed this plan would be likely to secure the nomination of sensible and temperate persons, while if the power was vested in the clergy themselves the ap-

  505
  pointment would represent nothing but the violent opinions of the majority which happened to be dominant in the Church at that particular time. For these reasons, he was not at all unfavourable to the political nomination of Bishops. This Bill had been framed strictly in accordance with the general principles, whether good or bad, on which the Church stood—namely, the right of Parliament to deal with the affairs of the Church absolutely and without control—and, therefore, it should have his support.
  COLONEL MAKINSreminded the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that though the Crown could nominate to a Bishopric the person nominated did not become a Bishop until he was consecrated, so that it was not correct to say that the Crown could make a Bishop. It was right enough that the Crown should make territorial arrangements for the Church; but dealing with faith and doctrine was altogether a different matter. The Bill of last year did not refer to these matters. With reference to the demand of a Bishopric for Cornwall he should say that the fact of there being so few Churchmen there, was owing to the want of a Bishop. He hoped the Government would meet the necessity in a practical manner. He desired to express the opinions of his constituents in Essex in favour of the Bill, and though they did not all approve the territorial arrangements in their details, they were in favour of the Bill as a step in the right direction.
  MR. MONKagreed very much with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He considered that it was better that a new Bishopric of St. Albans should be created than that a Suffragan Bishop should be appointed. He thought no one would deny that the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester had shown great consideration in depriving themselves of their residences and of part of their incomes in order to help to endow the diocese of St. Albans. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this Bill had dispensed with the appointment of a Dean and Chapter for the election of the first Bishop—he had recurred to the practice of appointment by Letters Patent, which obtained in the reign of Edward VI., and had entirely given up the principle of election by congé d'élire. When the
  506
  Bill went into Committtee it was his intention to move that it was inexpedient that any Bishop of St. Albans should be appointed otherwise than by Letters Patent from the Crown.
  MR. GRANTHAMclaimed for the large population of Surrey that it had a right to be heard in this matter. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) urged that there was no strong feeling for the appointment of a Bishop, because Petitions had not been sent up; but the truth was, that most people who took an interest in such matters preferred to make their views known through their Representatives. If they analyzed the statistics in relation to the population of the districts to be effected by the change, they would find that the new Bishop of Rochester would be practically the Bishop of Surrey, for out of 1,250,000 souls which the diocese would contain, it would be found that 1,000,000 of them would live in two of the divisions of Surrey; and, as one of the Members for Surrey, he hoped the House would allow him to say a word or two upon the subject, because he must admit that most of his constituents, who felt interested in the matter, had been much opposed to this Bill, because they thought that the importance of the county, from population and position, was such that Surrey should have a Bishop to itself, and they were very much opposed to any division of their county, as well as to its being simply tacked on to Rochester. At first, he was inclined to agree with them, and to think also that that alteration of the dioceses was done simply for the benefit of the Bishops of St. Albans and of Winchester, and looking at it as a question of population only, there could be no doubt that it was a direct benefit to them, as they were relieved of the largest mass of their population without any practical reduction of their incomes, while the new diocese of Rochester would have a far larger population than either of the old bishoprics, but would only receive half the emoluments. Looking, however, to area, it would be found that the old bishoprics would still have far larger dioceses than the new one, and quite as large as they could properly work, and as to income, the new diocese of Rochester would, at the death of the present Bishop—who would, it was believed, exchange his Bishopric for the new see of St. Albans—receive the same income that

  507
  was assigned to the majority of the other bishoprics. While, if they did not accept the scheme which was undoubtedly a great improvement of the existing state of things, he could not see his way to any improvement being made for many years. They ought to look to the practical rather than the particular and sentimental result of the measure. The inhabitants of Surrey ought, therefore, he thought, to accept the Bill, and be thankful to the Home Secretary for the efforts he had made to meet their wants. With these views, he should support the Bill, but he would suggest that the name should be altered from the Bishopric of Rochester to that of Rochester and Southwark. There was in Southwark one of the finest churches (St. Saviour's) in the South of England, and the new Bishop would therefore find a suitable Cathedral church for his ministrations. The best answer that could be given to the hon. Member for Merthyr, that instead of creating bishoprics measures should be taken for increasing the incomes of the clergy, was to be found in the establishment of the Bishop of London's fund and a similar one in the diocese of Winchester, which funds were entirely owing to the work of the respective Bishops of those dioceses.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, that although he could not agree with the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope), and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), in their very different reasons for supporting the measure, yet he should support the second reading of the Bill. He would first trouble the House with a brief chapter from his own ecclesiastical biography. He was born in the town of Hertford, where he lived for a time under the mild reign of Dr. Kaye, Hertford then forming part of the diocese of Lincoln. Before he was confirmed, and without his consent, he was transferred to the more vigorous administration of Dr. Bloomfield to the diocese of London, and again, without his consent, he was transferred to the diocese of Rochester. It was, however, obviously inconvenient to be governed by a Bishop so distant as the Bishop of Lincoln, and also equally inconvenient to be governed by a Bishop living on the other side of the Thames, and he therefore accepted the Bill as a mere re-arrange-
  508
  ment of dioceses, so that Hertford and Essex might be more efficiently governed under a resident Bishop. He thought the Home Secretary had done well to bring in this Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not intend to enter into the broad question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Richard) as to the existence or not of the Established Church. He fully agreed with those who held that the nation gained more from its connection with the Church than the Church gained from connection with the State. At the same time, he was fully alive to the advantages which the Church derived from its connection with the State. Persons of all denominations also gained much from the established existence of a Church celebrated for its moderate doctrine, and in which, in the main, every one was kept practically to that doctrine. He need not refer to the great benefits which the Church of England had conferred upon Christendom by the position it had taken in regard to the doctrines of the Reformation, and in setting an example to all other religious denominations in regard to the work of the poor. Assuming that the Church of England was to continue to exist, and that there were to be Bishops in it, then, if there were three large dioceses in it like London, Rochester, and Winchester, the Bishops of which had more work on their hands than they could possibly get through, and if they came to an arrangement beneficial to the Church by dividing those three dioceses into four, and by that means the work could be better carried out both with respect to the Church and the nation, then this Parliament would be wise to accept it. Upon that practical ground he based this Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) had stated with perfect truth that there was at first considerable opposition in that county to the Bill because the inhabitants of that county had done a great deal towards providing a Bishop of Surrey; but he believed that now the common sense prevailing in the county and other parts of the diocese was that this was a practical measure for meeting the present purpose, and would be a great relief to the Bishop of Winchester, and insure due episcopal supervision for that part of Surrey which would be transferred to the diocese of Rochester. With regard

  509
  to his hon. Friend's proposal that the Bishop should he called the Bishop of Rochester and Southwark, there was, he was informed, a practical objection. He did not wish to create by this Bill a Bishopric of Southwark as well as Rochester. He knew of no precedent for a Bishopric being called by two names, unless there had been two Sees previously in existence. If he called the Bishopric by the two names, he would be creating practically a Bishopric of Southwark. He had met the people of Surrey so far that there was a clause in the Bill providing that the residence of the Bishop of Rochester should be in Southwark. That would be a position from which the diocese would be very easily worked, and it would give great satisfaction to that part of the country. He trusted the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would not think it necessary to encumber the Bill by an abstract Resolution on the subject of the congé d'élire, because he had made no provision in the Bill for the establishment of a dean and chapter, having no funds for that purpose. The dean and chapter could not be created without an Act of Parliament, when the hon. Member could state his objections, and mean-while the Bishop of St. Albans would be created by the Crown by Letters Patent. These three Bishops deserved the thanks of the Church, and, above all, of the inhabitants of the diocese over which they presided, for the arrangements they had made for dividing the dioceses and for the sacrifices they had made. As the character of the Bishops generally had been somewhat impugned, he must say that he did not think there could be found a body of men of an equal amount of learning and intelligence who were animated by a more direct and single-minded wish to devote their lives to the performance of their duties or who worked harder than the Bishops of the Church of England.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 273; Noes 61: Majority 212.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 83.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Read.)
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 83.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th May.]
  Clause 21 (Proceedings against offenders).
  MR. MUNTZmoved, in page 7, line 5, after "by," to insert "the Inland Revenue Department, Somerset House, whose certificate shall be final." He believed the trade were extremely jealous of the certificate given by the analyst at Quarter Sessions, but would be contented with the certificate of the Inland Revenue Department.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, his hon. Friend in his Amendment had somewhat confused the function of the Judge and analyst. He could not accept it, on the ground that it proposed to leave the final decision on questions of adulteration with the Department of Somerset House. That decision must rest with the Courts of Law. He would prefer that the hon. Member should allow the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to put his Amendment on the same point, as it seemed to him to meet it better. He was willing on the part of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to undertake the duties of analyzing, without, however, giving to their decision any character of finality if it could be challenged on any subsequent analysis.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, it was admitted that there were very few competent analysts to be found, and believed that there had been several miscarriages of justice throughout the country. Speaking on behalf of traders he had to say that they were not at all disposed to object that their goods should be thoroughly examined; but they desired that the examination should be made thoroughly, certainly, and sensibly. In the majority of cases the examination had been neither thorough, nor certain, nor sensible. In one case a gentleman who had filled the office of high sheriff of the county of Anglesey had been fined for selling the finest green tea, and in the county of Northampton several traders had been fined for selling coffee adulterated with acorns. Some samples of the coffee were sent to London to be examined, and it was found that there was not a particle of acorn in the coffees, whereupon the local analyst admitted that he had made a mistake. In regard

  511
  to cocoa persons had been charged with adulterating it with sugar, flour, and honey—in no civilized country was it prepared otherwise—and on the certificates given there had been many convictions. He believed that all pepper contained a certain amount of silica; but a certificate had been given that a sample of pepper contained 1 per cent of siliceous matter, on which a trader, but for wiser counsels prevailing, would have been fined. Personally, he should rather like to see all the analyses which might be necessary under the Act left to the Department at Somerset House. This would be a cheaper and more satisfactory course than the one proposed in the Bill. He quite agreed in the observation that if the chemists at Somerset House were made the sole analysts for the purposes of this Bill, it would largely prevent adulteration, while the ratepayers would be gainers by the change. He did not think that it was fair that the same magistrates who in Petty Sessions had the appointment of the local analysts should afterwards at Quarter Sessions determine appeals from the reports of those persons. He should therefore support the Amendment.
  DR. C. CAMERONremarked that the scarcity of competent analysts now complained of was owing to the sudden demand for their services, which was the consequence of recent legislation. It would, however, be every year less and less felt. The personnel at the laboratory at Somerset House consisted of a principal, a deputy principal, eight permanent assistants, and eight temporary assistants, and it was impossible that such a staff could get through the enormous amount of work that would be thrown upon it under the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and it could not be increased without great cost to the country. With regard to the finality of the Somerset House certificate, the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was, in his opinion, the true one. An analyst was not a Judge, nor had he to find a trader guilty of adulteration. He had simply to report upon the samples submitted to him. The method of appeal provided for England was not so satisfactory as that provided for Scotland; but the proposed Amendment was not the way to remedy matters. In Eng-
  512
  land the appeal was to be from Petty Sessions to Quarter Sessions, whereas in Scotland it was from the Justices to the Sheriff. He suggested that the County Court would be the most suitable court of appeal.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that in accepting the proposal that all the analyses should be conducted at Somerset House the Government were incurring considerable responsibility. He should wish to know what security the Government had that the assistants at Somerset House were properly qualified for the discharge of such important duties as were about to be thrown upon them by this Bill, because it was evident that the salaries they received were not such as the first chemists in the country would be entitled to. He, however, should not divide the Committee on the Amendment, because he merely wished to point out to the Government the dangerous responsibility they had taken upon themselves in accepting this Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was willing to waive his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PELLmoved, in page 7, to leave out line 6 and to end of Clause, and insert—
  "By persons to be appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who shall thereupon make the analysis, and give a certificate to such justices of the result of the analysis; and the expense of such analysis shall be paid by the complainant or the defendant as the justices may by order direct."
  He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted his Amendment.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, and Her Majesty's Government were quite aware of the responsibility they were taking upon themselves by so doing.
  MR. SULLIVANobserved, that the analyses conducted at Somerset House would command the confidence of the country.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he was glad the Government had consented to give a better security for the skill and competence of the analysts, inasmuch as practically the decision of the Justices would always be governed by the analyst's report.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought cases might arise in which it would not be desirable to make either the complainant or the defendant pay the expense of the analysis, and that some discretion in this respect ought to be left to the Justices. Up to this time the public had not had confidence in the analysts, but he hoped the result of the debate would be to restore that confidence. He thought the Amendment would be better without the alteration of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRwas of opinion that the terms of the Amendment were too vague. He suggested that the words "the chemical officers in the employment of the Inland Revenue" should be substituted for the words "some persons to be appointed by the Commissioners."
  DR. LUSHsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present in order that the Government might have an opportunity of re-considering it.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought it of importance that analysts should be examined as to their literary as well as their scientific qualifications.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLapproved of the suggestion that the articles should be sent to the Inland Revenue Office for examination.
  Amendment, with the substituted words, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
  Th House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Tredegar, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland) * (100).
Second Reading—Chimney Sweepers (71); Artizans Dwellings (82); Seal Fishery (Greenland) * (80); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (70).
Committee—Report—Regimental Exchanges (44); Sea Fisheries * (86).
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (55), and passed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL. (No. 71.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL. (No. 71.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it had been his sad duty to address their Lordships twice already on this painful subject—once in 1853, again in 1864, and now again in 1875. Although he was compelled, in the interest of his clients, to stand for a time that evening, between them and a larger question, they would not, he was sure, be averted by the apparent meanness of the cause—far from mean, in fact, since it concerned the temporal and eternal welfare of some thousands of children, the most oppressed, degraded, and tortured creatures on the face of the earth. It was through their Lordships' House, and by their aid, that he hoped to appeal finally and effectively to public opinion. This "Chamber of Horrors" had long been open before us. The earliest trace of interest he could find was in the year 1773, when the matter was in the hands of Mr. Jonas Hanway; and in 1788 a Bill was passed by both Houses for the protection of climbing boys. Thus this terrible system had now been before the public for more than 100 years, and for 85 had been the subject of legislation. And yet the evil, wherever it prevailed, was, and was of necessity, as great as ever. He need not trouble them with the several provisions of the successive Acts. It was sufficient to say that all were marked by timidity, though with kind intentions, and all were far short
  438
  of the necessity, proved by the character of the evidence, and the safety of the remedy proposed. Here were the stages of legislation:—The first Act was in 1788—the 28th of George III. It was a good Bill in many respects as passed by the Commons, but it was detrimentally altered in the House of Lords. It passed, however, into a law, and continued so until 1834. But matters had become so bad in 1817 that the House of Commons passed an amending Bill, which, though highly approved by the Select Committee, to which it had been referred, was lost on the third reading in the House of Lords. Then came the Act of 1834. This was repealed by the Act of 1840, brought in by Mr. Fox Maule, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. This Act re-affirmed all the strictest provisions as to the structure of chimneys contained in the Act of 1834; it provided that no apprentices should be taken under 16 years of age, and it was the first that prohibited climbing boys altogether by enacting that none under 21 years of age should be allowed to ascend or descend flues. In 1853 he himself brought in a Bill to meet, if possible, the constant evasions of the Act; but this Bill was lost. In 1864 he brought in another Bill to remove some of those defects. It passed into a law, but, from a variety of reasons, had been inoperative in many parts of the Provinces. He would now call their attention to the evidence of oppression and suffering from 1773 to the present day. He again offered an apology for this drain on their time and patience; but they would see, he was sure, that this question was one of evidence and fact, and not simply one of appeal and argumentation. In 1788 there was no evidence taken before Parliamentary Committees, but the case must have been very clear and strong to move the two Houses to pass a restrictive measure when there was little or no force in public opinion, perhaps scarcely any existence of it, and when the Press had not attained the hundredth part of its present power. In 1817 there was abundant and frightful evidence taken before both Houses. He would give a sample of it, to show that the evil was the same now as then, and without any abatement. First, he would ask their Lordships to observe how great, compared with to-day, was the patronage extended to those children, and yet how

  439
  useless. In 1817 the society for their protection had the Prince of Wales as patron; the Duke of Bedford, Earl Grosvenor, Mr. William Wilberforce, Sir Francis Burdett, and a host of others as vice presidents. The Committee of the House of Commons, obtained by their efforts in that year, reported—
  "Infants of the early age of four, five, and six years have been employed, it being the practice for parents to sell their children to this trade."
  The evidence went on—
  "They are stolen from their parents and inveigled out of workhouses; that in order to conquer the natural repugnance of the infants to ascend the narrow and dangerous chimneys, blows are used; that pins are forced into their feet by the boy who follows up the chimney, in order to compel them to ascend it, and that lighted straw has been applied for that purpose; that the children are subject to sores, and bruises, and burns on their thighs, knees, and elbows; and that it will require many months before the extremities of the elbows and knees become sufficiently hard."
  Then after that statement, followed a long enumeration of the deformities, mutilations, cruelties, and diseases to which they were subjected, with the wretched moral and physical consequences; atrocious cases also of murder, treated as moderate manslaughter—and, to conclude, Richard Wright, a medical witness, stated the horrible character of the disease called "Chimney sweepers' cancer," which was confirmed by the eminent surgeon Mr. Cline, and before the Lords' Committee in the same year by Mr. Vincent and Sir William Blizard. The same witness added a frightful catalogue of diseases and mutilations to which they were subject through ill-treatment. All this was confirmed and intensified by evidence before the Lords in 1818. This year, too, was signalized by a stirring and fearful article in The Edinburgh Review, in which the Rev. Sydney Smith recorded all the horrors of the trade, and left the public without the possibility of a plea of ignorance Evidence was again taken in 1834, and in 1840 the Bill sent up by Mr. Fox Maule was referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. That evidence re-affirmed all the atrocities of the system, and satisfied the House of the necessity and safety of the proposed remedies. In 1853, also, much evidence was taken to show the violations of the Act. In 1864 we had the Report of a Royal
  440
  Commission, which had been issued two years before, to inquire into the employment of children and young persons. To this evidence, as it was so recent, he would now call their Lordships' attention. It must be, he feared, in many respects, a repetition of former statements; nevertheless the public and their Lordships might have forgotten them, and they would, he was sure, pardon the reproduction, for it was necessary, of evidence already given. Let them take first the ages at which they began to train up a child in the way he should go. It appeared from evidence taken in 1863 that the age at which training commenced was from six to eight, generally six—a "nice trainable age," said the masters. There were instances of five, and even of four-and-a-half. The hours of work in the smaller towns were eight to nine; in the larger, from 12 to 16, work beginning at 4 o'clock, 3, and even 2 in the morning. 63 witnesses were examined from all parts of England, 33 of whom were master sweeps. Then followed the mode of doing it. Of the training, Mr. Ruff, of Nottingham, a master sweep, said—
  "No one knows the cruelty which a boy has to undergo in learning. The flesh must be hardened. This must be done by rubbing it, chiefly on the elbows and knees, with the strongest brine, close by a hot fire. You must stand over them with a cane, or coax them by a promise of a halfpenny if they will stand a few more rubs. At first they will come back from their work streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again."
  "The following description," said the Commissioners, "is so painful, that we should hesitate to record it were it not amply confirmed:—'If, as often happens,' says a master sweep, 'a boy is gloomy or sleepy, or anywise "linty," and you have other jobs on at the same time, though I should be as kind as I could, you must ill-treat him somehow, either with the hand or brush, or something. It is remembering the cruelty which I have suffered which makes me so strong against boys being employed. I have the marks of it on my body now, and I believe the biggest part of the sweeps in the town have the same. That (showing a deep scar across the bottom of the calf of the leg) was made by a blow from my master with an ash-plant—i.e., a young ash tree that is supple and will not break—when I was six years old; it was cut to the bone, which had to be scraped to heal the wound. I have marks of nailed boots, &c, on other parts.'"
  Mr. Stransfield, another master sweep, said—
  "In learning a child you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it. I have gone

  441
  to bed with my knees and elbows scabbed and raw, and the inside of my thighs all scarified."
  Another said—
  "At first they will come back from their work with their arms and knees streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again, and perhaps go off at once to another chimney. In some boys I have heard that the flesh does not harden for years."
  One of the Commissioners stated—
  "I found a boy of about eight, in the market, who had run away from some place. Part of his knee-caps got torn off, the gristle all showed white, and the guilders (tendons) all around were like white string, or an imitation of white cotton. His back was covered with sores all the way up."
  To harden his knees a lotion made of old "netting"—i.e., urine kept long for the purpose—simmered with hot cinders, was put on them. "It was like killing him," said the sweep, "and I had to stand by and see it all." "Why, I myself," says another—
  "Have kept a lad four hours up a chimney, when he was so sore that he could scarcely move; but I would not let him come down till he had finished. It has often made my heart ache to hear them wail, even when I was what you may call a party to it. In learning a child," he goes on, "you can't be soft with him, you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it."
  There, then, their Lordships might see what was the elementary education that a Christian people gave to its children! Here came in another form of suffering and death. In some cases children, said the Report, had been—
  "Seriously burnt in consequence of having been compelled by their masters to ascend flues on fire."
  Mr. Michael Brown, Coroner for the borough of Nottingham, stated that he had held two inquests on climbing-boys; in one the fire was burning, and something was put over the still hot fireplace to enable the boy to rest his feet on at starting. According to Mr. Peacock, of Burslem, Mr. Herries, of Leicester, had collected 23 eases of boys who had been killed in chimnies by being stifled since 1840. Here was another form of suffering in the shape of a fearful disease—exactly as stated in 1817. Here came in some sanitary results. It was well known to surgeons that sweeps were liable to a peculiar disease—a most painful and fatal complaint, consisting of a peculiar form of cancer, arising from the exposure to soot. Among the men it was
  442
  known as the "sooty wart," or "sooty cancer." One master said he had known eight or nine sweeps lose their lives by that disease. All that was confirmative of the evidence before Parliament in 1817 and 1818. And now, for the necessary result in their moral condition, take the language of the Commissioners—
  "The concurrent testimony of all the witnesses proves that the climbing-boys are greatly neglected, and constitute, in fact, one of the most degraded classes of the community. The very nature of the employment itself, independently of bad treatment and neglect, tends to lower the character of those children; it is, in truth, unsuitable to a human being; and with all these painful facts before us we regard the moral debasement inseparable from the use of climbing-boys, as the worst effect of the violation of the law."
  Then, in order to show the safe use of the machine, the Commissioners stated, on a calculation, that nearly two millions and a-half of flues in the metropolis were swept by it; and they concluded by adding—
  "It is important to state, on evidence which cannot be controverted, that since the passing of the Act (1840), so far from fires caused by flues having increased in the metropolitan districts, they have proportionately diminished."
  The Commissioners then quoted from a very instructive "Table," as they termed it, by Captain Shaw of the Fire-engine Establishment; and that had been confirmed by a note he (Lord Shaftesbury) had himself received from that excellent public servant—
  "I consider," he wrote, "the system of climbing-boys most barbarous, and, from my special point of view, wholly unnecessary."
  Now, he had given them but a sample of the atrocities perpetrated under this Satanic system. There were some far worse than those he had recorded; but the statement of them would be long, and he hoped unnecessary. What more could be required to produce conviction? But to show the needless cruelty and oppression of the system, he asked them to take these facts. He quoted the authority of architects and builders, who had in every stage, from 1773 to the present day, shown the safety and superiority of the machine, especially in the evidence of 1834 and 1840. Let them hear now the practical evidence, which was quite unanswerable. On London: Letter from Colonel Henderson to say that the inquiries of the police had not discovered a single climbing-boy in the whole metropolis with its four millions

  443
  of inhabitants. Glasgow: Letter from the Chief Constable to declare the system utterly extinct. Edinburgh: Letter from the Lord Provost to the same effect. From Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Aberdeen, Ayr, Leicester, the evidence before the Commissioners was the same. Prom Paris, Lord Lyons wrote, on an official statement—
  "The modern construction of chimneys admits the passage of a brush or machine. There is no law against the use of climbing-boys; but in consequence of such construction that mode of sweeping is becoming more and more rare, especially in Paris."
  New York: Letter from General Schenck, to whose kindness he was much indebted—
  "Chimney-sweeps, climbing-boys, under twenty-one years of age, were many years ago employed in New York, and perhaps (though I think not) in some of the large American towns, but the practice has gone quite into disuse, and the work is now done altogether by brush or other machinery."
  He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was, indeed, charged, a few years ago, by the American journals, with cruelty and inconsistency, for reviling American slavery, and yet permitting the practice of climbing boys. How then, and why then, it might be asked, was the Act so inoperative? First, said the reporters, the neglect of the sections in the several Acts, regulating the construction of chimneys, and especially the disinclination of householders to incur the expense of introducing "soot holes," as prescribed by the Acts; second, the want of efficient machinery for putting the Acts into operation; third, the disinclination of magistrates to convict. A large proportion, they said, of the public connived at or directly encouraged the employment of climbing-boys. Those feelings, the Commissioners observed, were not confined to the lower ranks of society, but were shared by noblemen, magistrates, and other individuals. Again, the police, as a rule, did not appear to have interfered, the enforcement of the law not having been deemed by them to be part of their duty, and, as Mr. Batten—a barrister engaged for the purpose, who made inquiries in 1873—added, because they knew that it would not be agreeable to the authorities—authorities, such as those in the cities of Liverpool and Bath, where the law was openly and systematically broken. In some instances, they stated,
  444
  proofs of the infringement of the law had been demanded by the magistrates, which it was difficult or impossible for the prosecutor to furnish. Their Lord-ships ought now to hear Mr. Michael Brown. This evidence, by reason of the position of the witness, was of singular importance—
  "I am a solicitor," he stated, "and coroner for the borough of Nottingham. Another cause," said the witness, "which no doubt contributes to encourage the use of boys is that magistrates seem unwilling to convict on such a charge, knowing in some cases that boys are used in their own houses."
  He went on to say—
  "I was present at the hearing of a case a few miles from Nottingham. It was proved that the sweep entered with a boy, and that a brush, not a machine, was seen put out of the top of the chimney. The boy was present, and apparently not more than nine or ten years old, but the Bench required the informant to produce strict proof of his age, refusing to assume that he was under 21."
  Let their Lordships consider that. A lad of 10 years old, and the magistrate demanding legal proof that he was under 21! A plain denial of justice.
  "The sweep," continued the witness, "was acquitted. But the impression left upon my mind, and I believe on that of others in Court, was, that the magistrates were unwilling to convict if they could avoid it, and it was mentioned in the justice-room, as a fact, that the presiding magistrate had in his own house flues which would not admit of the use of the machine, and that boys were used instead."
  "I am convinced," wrote Mr. Lord, one of the sub-commissioners, "that, in very many country districts, and in towns also, the occupiers both of private dwellings and of places of business, wink at the practice of sending boys up their chimneys. Two very estimable gentlemen, magistrates of their county, have said to me very significantly, 'We prefer not to ask how our chimneys are swept.'"
  And that was the example of obedience to the laws set to the poorer sort by wealthy corporations, great Lords, and high magistrates! But here, in contrast to all that, he would quote something of a higher order. The Commissioners said—
  "Can we do better, in conclusion, than to recite the forcible language of the late Lord Cockburn, when passing sentence on a man who had been convicted, in 1840, for employing a child, who lost his life in a chimney at Glasgow:—'It was not only a scandal to the law to allow the sweeping of chimneys by children, but it was a deep disgrace on society to perpetuate the trade, society being, in point of fact, art and part in the commission of the inhumanity.' Lord Cockburn proceeded—'It was, indeed, monstrous to allow any child to be employed in such a way, and if the trade was but once put

  445
  down, it would be looked upon with so much horror that it would he difficult to convince the next generation that it had ever existed in a country claiming to be Christian.' "
  But here came another, and a sad contrast. In the present year and in the year 1873 two cases of deaths by climbing were tried at Assizes—only two cases, no doubt, out of many—one of a boy killed at Cambridge, and another at Gateshead. In both cases the jury brought in verdicts of manslaughter. But no such sentiments as those expressed by Lord Cockburn were heard from the English Judges, and the inadequate sentence was inflicted in each case of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It was not for him to talk about the administration of justice; but he had a right to say, and he did say, that he wished they had men like the Scotch Judges on their own judicial Bench. All he had stated had been confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Batten, a barrister, who gave last year his valuable services by travelling from place to place making inquiries and sending reports. He begged their Lord-ships to observe that he proposed no new law, but simply a mode of making the present one effectively. He simply proposed, according to the advice of the Commissioners, that no person should be allowed to carry on the trade of chimney-sweeper until he had received a licence for such from competent authority.
  "Our assistant Commissioner, Mr. Longe," say they, "who has visited Glasgow, attaches great importance to this plan of licensing, and we are of opinion that it should be made a part of the duty of the police to carry the Act into operation."
  The result, moreover, of many years' experience in Glasgow and Edinburgh proved the value of this regulation. It insured the observance of the law, and tended to raise the character of the master sweeps, who wherever the machine was used, were always elevated in the scale of society. Such was the case that he had to lay before their Lordships, and it only remained for him to ask what argument could be assigned, what facts adduced, against the simple proposition he had submitted to their judgment? Might he in a few words recapitulate the grounds of his appeal? He had shown that for more than 100 years that horrible system had been known to the public; that no one could in honesty plead ignorance of it; that it had occu-
  446
  pied the attention of individuals and of Parliament, who had endeavoured at various times and in various ways to restrict and suppress it. But the effect had only been partial. He had shown the long succession of disgusting and unsurpassed physical and moral cruelties which had been inflicted, and which were still being inflicted, on children of the tenderest years. He had shown that the law had been inoperative in many places—nay, had been wilfully and systematically disobeyed through the hostility of the magistrates, both unpaid and stipendiary, through the indifference of the public, and the obstinacy, recklessness, or parsimony of corporations and private gentlemen. He had shown that the humane and wise regulations for the construction of flues, enacted so early as 1834, had been, with very few exceptions, utterly disregarded; while the wretched children were still tormented under the plea of necessity, which necessity would be obviated by obedience to the law. He had shown the superior efficiency and safety of the machine. He had urged, and without possibility of refutation, that there existed not in the whole Kingdom a single flue which might not, with a trouble and cost unworthy of mention, be made sweepable by mechanical appliances. He had pressed on their Lordships' remembrance that among many of the millions of England, Scotland, and America the vile system was unknown, not that it was never known, but that being known it was banished as hateful and unnecessary. He had done what he could, and would their Lordships do the same? Surely they would now—he said it with all respect—they would, as apart of the Imperial Parliament, now emphatically declare that their laws were passed to be obeyed, and not to be systematically broken; that their beneficent statutes should not be set aside by high or low, rich or poor; and that, as all rule and authority came from above, they would exercise them in the spirit in which they had received them, the very least as feeling their care, and the greatest as not exempt from their power.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sure their Lordships had listened with much interest to the very able statement

  447
  of the noble Earl, for nobody was so competent to deal with the subject as the noble Earl. Everybody must admit it to be a disgrace that such a state of things should continue to exist; and, therefore, he was sure their Lordships would gladly give a second reading to the Bill, in order to show their anxiety to co-operate with the noble Earl in his endeavours to do away with the evils which he had so forcibly described. But would the measure, so ably advocated by the noble Earl, produce the good results he anticipated from it? On this, and former occasions, the noble Earl had expressed his opinion that the existing law was fully sufficient if put in force, and that the continuance of those evils was due to magistrates not enforcing the Act of Parliament—the real difficulty was to put the law in motion. Now, he must confess that, if this were so, and he had the noble Earl's word for it, he did not see how that evil was to be remedied by superadding to the existing law further provisions as to registration or licences, which magistrates would refrain from enforcing just as they did the present law. He thought that one effectual means for accomplishing what the noble Earl and all their Lordships desired was, by calling attention to the continued existence of this horrible scandal among us;—and that much would be effected by such speeches as that just delivered by the noble Earl. He believed that a speech which the noble Earl had delivered in their Lordships' House before Easter on the subject had done a great deal of good, and he ventured to anticipate that the speech he had delivered that evening would do still more. Another means was, by sending circulars to the police in various parts of the country, requiring a more stringent enforcement of the existing law—for he certainly did not see how the present Bill could operate to produce greater vigilance on the part of the police, or greater vigour on the part of the magistrates. Their Lordships must have heard with satisfaction the statement of the noble Earl, that in this great metropolis, and in other very large towns, the practice of sweeping chimneys by climbing boys was extinct. He thought that was no mean result to have followed from the exertions of the noble Earl, and those who worked with him, in this
  448
  cause. For the reasons he had already stated, he did not expect much from the Bill—he thought much greater results would flow from the influence of public opinion—but he would vote with the noble Earl, and the Government would support the second reading.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he did not differ very much from the noble Earl who had just spoken for the Government as to the results which might be expected from such appeals to public opinion as that made by the noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill; but, at the same time, the noble Earl had made so strong a case for the Bill, that he thought the House was bound to support him. He was disposed to think, however, that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) rather undervalued the probable effect of the system of licences proposed in the Bill. Licences had been enforced with good results in the case of other callings, and it might be expected that if chimney sweeps held a licence which could be revoked, they would be careful not to put in jeopardy their means of subsistence. He would suggest to the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill, whether the magistrates in Sessions would not be the best persons to issue the licences.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwas understood to suggest that it should be made obligatory on persons employing sweeps to see that the latter held licences under the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that the two great obstacles to the practical enforcement of the law were the indisposition of the magistrates to convict, and, consequently, of the police to act. Now, seeing what a large portion of the cost of the police of the country was paid out of the Imperial funds, the Government might put a pressure on the police to act against offending chimney sweepers, regardless of the feelings of magistrates, in at least bringing the cases before magistrates. He had very little fear but that the pressure of opinion which was sure to result from the harrowing statement made by the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would compel magistrates to act when cases in which they ought to do so were brought before them.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL.

  (NO. 82.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that though the practice had begun to prevail of constructing Bills without Preambles, yet the principles of the present measure would be found in the Preamble, the various propositions of which could scarcely be questioned. None of their Lordships would deny that—
  "Various portions of many cities and boroughs were so built, and the buildings thereon were so densely inhabited, as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants;"
  nor would any of their Lordships refuse their sanction to the further proposition that it was—
  "Necessary for the public health that many houses, courts, and alleys should be pulled down and such portions of the said cities and boroughs be reconstructed."
  Having thus glanced at the Preamble, he thought it might be convenient if, in the first place, he went through the enacting portions of the Bill for the purpose of simply stating what it proposed. Clause 1 was merely a provision for giving a short title to the Act. Clause 2 described the districts to which the Act was to apply and the Local Authorities in those districts. It was to apply to the City of London and the Metropolis exclusive of the City of London; urban sanitary districts in England containing a population of 25,000 and upwards; and urban sanitary districts in Ireland containing a similar population. The "local authority" was to be as respecting the City of London the Commissioners of Sewers, as respected the Metropolis outside the City, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in each urban sanitary district the urban sanitary authority of that district. He had the curiosity to ascertain the number of persons to whom the Act would apply exclusive of the inhabitants of the Metropolis and those of the City of London, and he found that it would apply to 5,400,000 souls. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that immense numbers of people would be affected by the provisions of the Bill now before them. Clause 3
  450
  provided that the Local Authority might make a scheme for improvement on being satisfied by an "official representation" of the unhealthiness of the district. Clause 4 provided that the "official representation" might be made by the medical officer of health of his own motion, or on the complaint of two justices of the peace, or of 12 ratepayers. Clause 5 described the requisites in the shape of maps, estimates, and particulars which should accompany the improvement scheme of a Local Authority. The Local Authority was to be invested with discretion as to the locality in which new dwellings were to be provided, and was not to be compelled to provide them within the area of demolition. One part of Clause 5 assumed increased importance when read in connection with Clause 8, which empowered the Local Authority to contract with the limited owner who was under restrictions as to his tenure. Another valuable portion of the Bill was that which diminished the costs of Parliamentary proceedings by employing the machinery of Provisional Orders. As to the execution of the scheme by the Local Authority—the Local Authority was, immediately on the scheme having received the confirmation of Parliament, to take steps for purchasing the land required, and for otherwise carrying out the scheme—they might sell or let any part of the land so purchased upon terms that would carry the scheme into execution; or they might engage with any companies or other bodies, to carry out the scheme upon such terms as they, the Local Authority, might think expedient; but they were not, without the express sanction of the confirming authority, to undertake themselves the execution of any part of the scheme—that was left to commercial or other enterprize. Hitherto it had been found by those who had directed special attention to the subject that the impediment to progress was the difficulty of acquiring sites and not the difficulty of providing funds; for some of the 16 associations or Companies of the Metropolis possessed more money than they had been able to devote to the objects for which they were formed. The Bill would not run counter to the principles of political economy, because interference with the inexorable laws of political economy must ultimately bring about much wider misery than would be temporarily caused by the existence of those

  451
  hard cases which, according to the proverb, produced bad law. The Bill left to private enterprize that which was no part of the business of either the State or the Local Authorities. Where, under the protection of the law, complicated tenures had grown up, it was no interference with the laws of political economy for the State to solve difficulties created by its own artificial action. The Bill was not a compulsory measure, and for the best of all reasons—if a Local Authority was really determined to do nothing, it would be difficult to coerce it by means of a Central Authority. He was unwilling to believe that the great municipal corporations of this country would, when called upon to deal with this subject, show such a want of public spirit as to allow such plague spots to remain within their jurisdiction as were proposed to be removed by this Bill. On this point he would refer their Lordships to what had been done by the Corporation of Liverpool in 1864, by the City of Glasgow in 1866, and by the City of Edinburgh in 1867 under their Improvement and Sanitary Acts. In Glasgow in one single improvement not fewer than 250 families were removed and found ready accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. The information on the Table of the House as to what had been done by the three great municipal bodies of this country to which he had referred, showed that they were not insensible of the duties which were imposed on them, and that a large portion of the remaining municipalities would gladly accept the opportunity of putting into operation the machinery placed at their disposal by this Bill. The real difficulty with which they had to deal was not the density of the population, for while in the most dense part of London the average density was 235 per acre, and the actual density of the densest part of London was 410 human beings per acre, yet the number accommodated in some of the improved areas were not less than 1,100 souls per acre. The real evil was the unsuitability of the tenements. The problem was complex, the remedy simple. By an economic use of the space obtained, and the erection of more suitable dwellings, they might hope a very large area would remain for playgrounds for children, or for squares, or, what was not less impor-
  452
  tant in a sanitary point of view, for wide streets. At all events, there was no reason to fear that a very large space would not be available for housing the dispossessed population. London was not like Paris where the population was not indigenous but continually recruited from the country. In 1871, there were living in London of persons born there 2,055,576, so that their Lordships would see the importance of providing adequate condition of sanitary propriety for the rearing of the large number of children born in London; while for the whole of England and Wales the decennial increase ef the rural population—1861–71—was 668,428, the increase of the urban population was 1,969,456. Parliament had not been forgetful of its duty in this respect, and from time to time various Acts had been passed dealing with the subject. He had before him a list of the Acts which had been passed; but up to the present time no comprehensive scheme of this kind had been initiated. One argument which was often used against the demolition of these houses was that it often drove the population into a worse state of things than before; but the detailed experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh gave a very different result. In fact, the working classes were always ready to avail themselves of the improved dwellings which were placed within their reach. Some valuable information had recently been placed on the Table with reference to the diminution of crime coincident with the improved dwellings of the lower classes. In Glasgow, in 1867, when the Improvement Trust commenced, the number of crimes reported was 10,899; whereas there had been, not a casual or sudden, but a continuous decrease, till in 1873 the number of crimes reported was only 7,869. Then, as to mortality. He had figures before him which showed the difference in this respect between two streets of Liverpool, one of which was properly ventilated and provided with sewers, and the other in a very defective sanitary condition. It appeared that while in the one street out of 100 children under one year only four died, no fewer than 50 died in the other. Again, whereas in the whole metropolitan area the ordinary death rate was 24 per 1,000, the death rate in the houses of the Metropolitan Associations for Providing Dwellings might be taken at 14,

  453
  Their Lordships would see in these figures how large a margin was left for improvement. It was useless to suppose that in providing suburban accommodation for the labouring classes they would find an adequate remedy for the evils complained of. It was essential to a large class of artizans that they should reside near their work. It was not only that time was lost if they lived in the suburbs—not only that they were separated all day from their families—but it was in many cases indispensable that the artizans should be always at hand; and therefore it was impossible that suburban dwellings should ever provide accommodation for that description of artizans. He hoped their Lordships would be of opinion that the time was come when a serious effort should be made in this matter. We had not only to make up for the neglect of the past, but to meet the growing demands of the future—for the population was increasing at an enormous rate, and it was estimated that between the years 1870 and 1880 no less than 3,000,000 souls would be added to the subjects of Her Majesty within these islands, of whom three-fourths would be deserters in towns. He had studiously refrained from drawing a sensational picture of the sufferings and horrors undergone in consequence of overcrowding. He appealed to their reason and justice. It must be remembered that we were no longer living under the conditions of a sparse and scattered population as in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and that we must do what we could to retrieve past errors as well as to make provision for the future. He trusted that if this Bill, the second reading of which he now begged to move, were passed, a great deal would be done to regain for the toiling millions whom it would affect their due share of health and happiness and of life.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deserve our praise and gratitude for the Bill they have introduced. I admire the boldness and perseverance with which they have addressed themselves to this difficult question. They have done their best to master the difficulty; but they have not mastered it; nor will they do so, until after wide and pro
  454
  tracted experience. The Bill, on a broad view of it, may be divided into two parts—demolition and re-construction. It may be, though the matter is doubtful, that the part affecting demolition is complete; I will assume, however, that it is so; but the more intricate part remains—and they will find that to cover with houses the large spaces, that shall have been laid bare, houses adapted in number and quality to the wants of the displaced population, will put their scheme very severely to the test. I cannot but think that the Government are over sanguine in their forecast of what will be effected by the Bill. It may ultimately produce great good; but the working of it will demand much thought and patience. It is true that there are very large areas in which great benefit will result to the community from the mere removal of the houses which now encumber them; but when they are removed, what is to be substituted? Now, look to the effects of demolition. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of families will be displaced; some for a time until the tenements shall have been re-built; but many permanently. Such was the case in the Westminster improvements—and for the population so disturbed provision must be made. It is stated, I know, in the Bill, that arrangements of this sort must accompany demolition; but the requirements of a clause and the fulfilment of those requirements are very different things, and oftentimes separated by a long interval. It is vain to rely on the ample notice that is to be given to the inhabitants. They do not, and they really cannot, give heed to it. Occupied, as they are, day by day and hour by hour, they think only of the present; and they cannot afford time or loss of wage to run about in quest of other dwellings. And so when the moment arrives for the levelling of the domiciles in which they reside, they are like persons possessed—perplexity and dismay are everywhere; the district has all the air of a town taken by assault. Then they rush into every hole where they can be received; some near, some very far off; though all struggle to be as close as possible to their former dwellings. Streets and houses, already over-crowded, become doubled in population. Every demand of health and decency is set aside; and people submit, by com

  455
  pulsion, to the greatest moral and physical degradation. I need not multiply instances, though I could well do so. But all that I have stated was seen when New Oxford Street was constructed, and the St. Giles's rookeries destroyed; the masses in Church Lane—a district already seething with life—were, in consequence, increased two-fold. And in Westminster, to make room for Victoria Street and other handsome improvements, a nation of men, women, and children was driven out; many of the old ones went into the workhouse, and never escaped from it; many fled across the water, suffering great privations, until they had formed new connections of work; and many pressed into the swarming rooms of the neighbourhood, the landlord, in numberless instances, where the poor inhabitants had two rooms, taking from them one, and then forcing them to pay for the single as much as they had paid for the double apartment. Now, I would not have spoken on the present occasion had not the subject before us been one on which I have been engaged ever since 1843; one to which I have devoted a great deal of time and attention; and yet I am no nearer the solution of the problem than when I began it. I mention all this to show the necessity of much care and circumspection in your preliminary operations. My noble Friend has said, and very truly, that the labourer must in many cases reside near his work. That is exactly the point I am insisting on. It is so, even with several classes of the skilled artizans. Take, for example, the watchmakers of Clerkenwell. They must live near together, because, as no one of them is rich enough to possess a complete set of tools for his minute and delicate business, they borrow of each other; a mutual service that could not be rendered were they far apart. And I concur again with my noble Friend that suburban dwellings will not give the full remedy we seek—they will furnish but a part of it—nevertheless, if taste and preference lie that way, these tastes should be encouraged. But now, my Lords, let us think of re-construction—we must not, on commencing so vast a work, rely on what is ordinarily called philanthropy. It must be a commercial enterprize; and with that view we must have recourse to the building capitalists. Now such experience as I have leads me
  456
  to believe that few of them would undertake a work like that with less than a fair prospect of 10 per cent on the outlay. But here the promoters and the contractors will be at variance. The promoters will of course desire accommodation for the classes temporarily displaced; but the contractors will seek to erect houses which will bear the highest rent by being adapted to the richer order of skilled artizans. At once, then, will arise the difficulty. The large proportion of the labouring people in the metropolis are not of the skilled class, but of the inferior order of labourers who live by casual and irregular duty, without any definite or constant employment, and, consequently, unable to afford sufficient house-room for themselves and their families. Here is a sample, and a sample only, from the Report of the Charity Organization Society on the dwellings of this class—
  "In St. Giles's, about 3,000 families have only one room, exclusive of about 2,000 persons living in common lodging-houses; and in Holborn, out of a population of 44,809 persons, about 8,000 families are in single rooms."
  I may just, in passing, show the sanitary results of such things.
  "The average mortality," the Report adds, "in the worst streets in St. Giles's varies from about 40 to 60 per 1,000 persons living, and that in the worst parts of Whitechapel averages 40 per 1,000, while that of all London for the year 1872 was only 21·4."
  Now, must we not infer from this statement that if two parishes alone present such a mass, the whole aggregate of London must present something almost intolerable? And yet these are the classes for which you are to provide sufficient and proper abodes. My noble Friend has said that the experiment has already been tried in Glasgow, and with success. He says that some 250 families were removed, and that they found ample accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. Now, in the first place, I remember a saying of Mr. Canning's, that "nothing was so fallacious as figures, except facts;" but I must also observe than an experiment made on 250 families is widely different from one to be made on some thousands; and we must also ask what was the precise class of the parties removed, and we must consider, moreover, the distinctive peculiarities of the Scotch and English character. But when my noble Friend makes his calculations as to the possi-

  457
  bility of erecting cheap tenements for the poorer sort, he must remember that the cost of buildings already erected and the rent put upon them do not furnish a proof that similar results may be attained in the present day. The price of material is higher than it was; and the rate of wages in the building trade is so advanced, that, in order to make a remunerative profit, a much heavier weekly payment must be imposed on the occupier of apartments, whether they be constructed on the separate or the block system. Well, what are we to do? Are we to construct a vast number of single rooms in order to meet the means of these poor people, or are we to build houses according to our new sanitary requirements? If we re-construct single rooms we shall maintain a most indecent and most immoral state of things; if, on the other hand, we do not, rents will be raised so high that it will be perfectly impossible for the people to bear the demands that will be made upon them. I am speaking now of labourers who have no regular work of any kind, and not of skilled artizans. These men live from hand to mouth, and have to take work as it comes, just at the moment. At the docks, for instance, men may be seen standing in single file, 40 or 50 deep. There they remain for hours in the hope of getting work; and were they not on the spot they would stand no chance of being employed. The earnings of these men, whose employment is dependent on the wind and the arrival of the ships, are extremely small. When there is plenty of work they make about 17 s. a-week, but taking the average throughout the year their earnings in the aggregate do not exceed 9s. 9d. a-week. Then, as to their abodes; some single rooms are let for 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a-week, but there are some of these people who pay as much as 4s. 6d. a-week for a single apartment. You must remember, too, that although the wages of skilled artizans and those who have fixed labour have risen very considerably, the earnings of the class I have been alluding to have not perceptibly increased, owing partly to the nature of the work and partly to the great influx of people from the country every year. Now I must repeat that, unless we reconstruct dwellings adapted to their means, great injury will be inflicted on the people who are displaced. Yet
  458
  there is one form of remedy well worthy of consideration. We can adapt, drain, and ventilate old tenements, courts, alleys, and culs-de-sac at a far less outlay than is required to construct anything new. The Society with which I am connected—the Labourers' Friend Society—has made, and successfully made, such efforts on a pretty large scale. We began it some years ago; and since that time the plan has been pursued, and with very good results, by an energetic lady, Miss Octavia Hill. Let me show your Lordships some of the happy results. Take, for instance, Tyndall's Buildings, in Gray's Inn Road. We got possession of this court, and renovated it at a cost of £2,699 19 s. 11 d. Well, on an average of seven years, from 1864 to 1870, the return has been 5¼ per cent. It contains 87 rooms for families; and your Lordships will bear in mind that the inhabitants are of the poorest class of labourers, mostly Irish, who cannot afford to pay more than from 1s. up to 2s. for their week's lodging. This court I had long coveted, for it was filthy, miserable, and disorderly beyond all precedent. Fever was never absent; and I can answer, from personal inspection, that I, at least, have not descriptive power enough to say what it was physically and morally. Nevertheless, we had courage for the work, and the issue had better be stated in the words of two authorities of some value in the district. The medical officer reported that fever was now unknown in that locality; and the police-constable, who for a long time had been acquainted with the wretched place, assured me that while formerly the police always went down the court by couples, they had now seldom occasion to go there at all. Similar statements may be made in respect of Wild Court, near Drury Lane. It contains 100 rooms for families, which families are also mostly Irish. It was renovated at an outlay of £3,364 19 s. 11 d., with an average percentage of 4¼. I may add, without going into details, the like results have been obtained in Clarke's Buildings, in St. Giles's-in-the-fields. Now, I venture to suggest this plan—it is, unquestionably, worthy of consideration, as a partial, not as a complete, remedy. Surely, in every area where there is to be a wide demolition, some of the best buildings might be reserved for improvements and adaptation,

  459
  the only mode whereby we shall be able, at least so far as we know at present, to better the domiciliary condition of the great bulk of the labouring classes. But whatever be the determination of higher powers, I will venture to express a hope that all will be done with care, circumspection, and, above all, not in haste. If the clearances be gradual, it will be far more easy to make provision, temporary or permanent, for those who are driven out. I have been much among the people in such circumstances; and I know what they suffer; and I know, too, how they bear it. I have often heard the language of complaint and sorrow, but never of sedition or revenge. The law thus carried into effect may, by God's blessing, do much good; and my noble Friend may take this assurance to his heart—His brevibus principiis via sternitur ad majora.
  LORD ABERDARE, in supporting the Bill, said, the noble Earl had referred to the vigorous way in which Liverpool and Glasgow had grappled with the evils of bad house accommodation, and he (Lord Aberdare) asked why similar improvements should not be effected in London? The Bill, no doubt, placed the responsibility on the Local Authorities of the various districts—but if these were competent to perform these functions, why should not London, which possessed such large powers of self-government, be able to effect as much as Glasgow? He believed that since 1870 upwards of 3,000 miserable dwellings, containing 15,000 more miserable inhabitants, had been pulled down in Glasgow, and within the same time a sufficient number of new houses built to accommodate the working classes, as well as to meet the increase of the general population. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Earl Beauchamp) had touched but slightly on the diminution of the crime in connection with this subject; but the noble Earl did not refer to the improvement in the health and morals which must result from these alterations. He (Lord Aberdare) believed that a very great diminution of crime would result from such improvements as were contemplated by this Bill. Since the improvements made in house accommodation in Glasgow the number of crimes there had decreased from 10,899 to 7,869. That was an answer to the argument that the pulling down
  460
  of miserable dwellings occupied by the poor would propagate evil and spread it over a larger area. He thought that power should be given by the Bill to exchange land occupied by bad dwellings for other land wherever such change would be to the interest of a locality. He cordially supported the principle of the Bill.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, there was no greater obstacle to the health, the purity, the culture, and vigour of the labouring population than the bad condition of the dwellings in which many of that class lived—he believed it would be found that the morality of a population was on a par with the condition of their dwellings. Her Majesty's Government had therefore in every respect done a wise and useful thing in introducing the present measure to Parliament, and they had done so without the impulsion of any agitation; but solely for the object which recommended itself to their consideration—the necessity of improving the dwellings of the working classes and the poor. The necessity for such a Bill had been long advocated by persons who were identified with questions of the kind, but it was a matter which the Government of the day might have allowed to hang over for an indefinite period; and, as it dealt with questions of property, and was therefore a matter of some delicacy, there was a strong temptation to let it drift. And it was certainly a little remarkable that the class which was to be most benefited by the Bill had shown so little interest in it. Having given his opinion as to the value of the measure, he thought he was justified in making some criticism upon its main features—namely, the ground on which it proceeded, the agencies it employed, and the powers it conferred upon them. The ground on which it proceeded was that it was absolutely necessary, not only upon sanitary but upon moral grounds, that some such measure should be passed; but he regretted to say that having just mentioned the word "moral" in the Preamble the Bill made no further mention of it. There were in many of the large cities and towns localities which were the resorts of the vicious and criminal classes, and which ought on that ground to be swept away, but which, being perfectly healthy, could not be touched under the provisions of the Bill.

  461
  With regard to the agencies which were to be employed in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, he found that the proposals were various. In the case of the metropolis, Petitions for the confirmation of schemes were to be presented to a Secretary of State, but the Petitions of urban sanitary authorities were to be dealt with by the Local Government Board. On the whole, he thought it would be better if the Local Government Board had been chosen as the confirming authority in London as well as in the provinces. Before this Bill was introduced, local authorities possessed power to demolish insanitary property, but not to make a useful appropriation of the site, and the exercise of that power in some cases would have intensified the evil it was intended to mitigate. This Bill gave all the necessary supplementary powers with which a public body could properly be intrusted. But what he objected to was that after a scheme had been made by the Local Authority, and after that scheme had been confirmed by the confirming Authority named in the Bill, it was quite optional on the part of the Local Authority to take proceedings or not towards removing buildings. This could not be for fear of investing the confirming Authority with arbitrary power, because at present if a Local Authority neglected its duty, the Local Government Board could coerce or do what was necessary and raise the money by rating the locality. Why, then, should the superior Authority be left so impotent in this case? It ought to submit a report to the Local Authority for its remarks, and if the Local Authority failed to satisfy the confirming Authority, that ought to be invested with power to order a scheme to be carried out. The hardship would be far less in this case than in reference to water supply and drainage, because in those cases it was an administrative Authority that overrode an elective authority, while in this case nothing could be done without the sanction of Parliament. The Bill also provided that there should be a distinction made with regard to London and the country; and that while in London the Home Secretary was to be the confirming Authority, with respect to provincial towns it was to be the Local Government Board. He did not see any reason for putting the metropolis into a dif
  462
  ferent position from that of any other town, and he thought the distinction was an invidious one. Nothing could exceed the extent of the powers now given to Local Authorities, either under application for private Bills or for public works. Unfortunately, while they had these extensive powers, they were inert and refused to act. He thought that it would be wise in the Government to amend the Bill in one respect. At present the Local Authority would only have power to make a report, which might be acted upon or not; but, in his opinion, they ought to be required, in the event of the confirmation of their report, to carry it into execution. He did not think the apprehensions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as to capital always requiring the incentive of 10 or 15 per cent were at all well founded, for experience had shown that companies and associations had no difficulty in attracting capital, the owners of which were satisfied with 4 or 5 per cent. The three principal building companies in London paid 4½, 3, and 5 per cent respectively. The Peabody Trust did not pay more than 3¾, but it was conducted on charitable rather than commercial principles; and, if the property were to be sold by auction, it would probably sell to realize 4 or 5 per cent. In a country in which capital accumulated so rapidly, it would be better that it should be employed in these undertakings than that it should be squandered, as it lately had been, upon foreign loans.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 3rd of June next.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.
(The Lord President.)
REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  (NO. 44.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD SANDHUREST: My Lords, in consequence of what I have heard since I made some remarks in this House on Friday evening, I find that a misapprehension exists in the public mind in regard to the intention of those remarks, and I am anxious to make a short explanation. In the first place, it is said that I was making an attack on the administration of the Army; and, in

  463
  the second place, it is said that I had reflected on the honour of some of the officers of the Army. I am happy that these circumstances have been brought to my notice, because I am able to refute in the most direct manner both imputations. In the first place, with regard to the administration of the Army, what I said was this—that it appeared to me to be inconsistent with security that the execution of a very important measure should rest on the responsibility of one individual, and that it should be declared that solely according to the opinion of that individual we should be guided in estimating what might be the state of the Army hereafter. I illustrated my point by referring to the administration of the Army when it was conducted by the Duke of Wellington, and it appeared to me that if abuses arose under the administration of such authority as that—for the practice of the Army under that administration was analogous to the practice introduced by the Bill about to become law—I do say that the illustration I used was sufficient for my point, while at the same time it shows how very far it was from my mind to attack the administration of the Army. What was the illustration? It was this—When I was a young man, in 1844, my regiment was ordered to India. Under these circumstances, exchanges were very freely permitted under the orders of the Duke of Wellington. The other night I spoke from memory; but I have since exactly verified the facts, and I find that on that occasion four new captains joined the regiment under the process of exchange, and five subaltern officers. I think there was a sixth, but owing to the promotions in the regiment, I do not exactly remember. That appears to me to be a great number of exchanges, and the effect on the regiment, as I stated, was very serious. What were the circumstances of the country and of the Army at that period? In July and August, 1844, it was deemed necessary by the Government of this country, at the requisition of the Government of India, to send three battalions of Infantry to re-inforce the Army of India. In those days three battalions, numbering upwards of 3,000 men, was a very large re-inforcement of the British Army in India. What was the reason? The reason was, that Maharajah Runjeet Singh had lately died, there was a mu
  464
  tiny in his army, our frontier was threatened, and there was danger of war. Therefore, the Army was re-in-forced. But the circumstances were not known to the public—and I beg your Lordships' attention to this. Although, of course, present to the minds of the authorities, they were not known to the regimental officers, who embarked completely according to the rights and privileges offered them and consistently with the rules of the Army as understood in those days—a system bearing a very close analogy to what will be introduced by this Bill. When I stated these facts, I beg your Lordships to understand that there was no reflection, direct or indirect—no insinuation against the honour of those gentlemen with whom it was my great privilege to be associated in early life, and the survivors of whom are among my dearest friends. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of asking the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) not to consider that he has a monopoly of regard for the honour of the officers of the British Army. Let me beg of him to recollect that there are others who feel as keenly as he does in this matter, and old officer as I am—having served, with a very brief interval of time passed in diplomatic employment, during 40 years—I venture to think that the honour of the Army, the honour of its officers, and the discipline of its regiments, are at least as dear to me as to the noble Duke opposite. We on this side have sought to introduce improvements into the system of the Army; I do not wish to exaggerate their importance, but I am confident we have appealed to a higher motive—we have sought to inculcate the principle of duty, while perhaps we have disregarded that of private interest; but at least it cannot be said that we have been regardless of the honour and interests of the Army.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, as the noble Lord has alluded so directly to me, your Lordships will, I am sure, allow me to make a very few remarks after what has fallen from him. The noble Lord takes me to task in a manner which would lead your Lordships to believe that I assumed the monopoly of regard for the honour of the Army. My Lords, I have never attempted to monopolize such a feeling or to say that I had a right to do so; but in common

  465
  with your Lordships, I have a right to feel very keenly for everything connected with the Army. I have every right to have a strong feeling of regard for the Army, for my own father fought and bled with the Duke of Wellington: my grandfather, also, was engaged in the Battle of Waterloo, and I have many relatives and intimate friends in various ranks and grades of the Army. Therefore, I say I have a perfect right to feel keenly everything that is said about the Army; and because the other evening the noble Lord made remarks in connection with the Army, and the officers of the Army, which I did not think altogether well-founded, I took the liberty of asking him the question which I am extremely glad I put to him, because it has enabled him to give your Lordships the version he has now offered of the meaning of the remarks which he made on that occasion. I will venture to remind him of what he said; and I think your Lordships will see that, at all events, the mode in which he addressed the House on that occasion was such as might give rise to the impression among those who heard him that he spoke in no very respectful terms of the particular regiment in which he was a captain. I accept his explanation to-night, that he did not intend to say anything disrespectful of his own regiment; but, with your Lordships' permission, I will read the very few words which fell from him the other night. He stated that on the occasion to which he referred very great inconvenience arose from the system of exchanges. He said—
  "When he was a young man, a captain in a Line regiment, what happened? It was a time when the saying was 'That officers must either sell or sail.' … At the very time they were about to sail, 10 young officers walked into the harbour in the place of 10 officers who exchanged—four captains and six subalterns."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 252.]
  He said—
  "Their Lordships might judge of the disorganization which existed in that regiment for many months afterwards. That occurred under the great Duke of Wellington. He was talking of the year 1844, when war was threatening in India. The regiment to which he belonged, within a few months after its landing, found itself in the presence of the enemy—those 10 officers had actually exchanged from a regiment which, in a brief period, was engaged on the frontiers of India."—[Ibid.]
  What the noble Lord has said now is that these officers profited by the system
  466
  of exchanges which was permitted, and that none of them had any notion they would be brought very shortly after their arrival in India in face of the enemy. He says it was well known that this system of exchanges had demoralized the regiment. But if those officers in England could not know anything that was likely to happen in India, then the system of exchanges could not be complained of; and if it had demoralized the regiment, I think the noble Lord will admit the demoralization lasted but a very short period, and that by the time they got to India there was very little demoralization left, if we may judge from what occurred in that regiment at that time. The noble Lord talked as if we were then in a state of warfare in India. It was not so. In the beginning of 1844 Lord Ellenborough was recalled; and the father of my noble Friend the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) behind me went out in June. It was not for 19 months afterwards that there was anything like an engagement with the enemy.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: In the summer of 1845 the first battle was fought.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: That was in consequence of an aggression from the Sikhs. The noble Lord may contradict me if he is able; but I do not think there is anything in the history of that time which would indicate that we were then under the impression that we were likely to be engaged in warfare. What, then, do the noble Lord's remarks come to? To this—that in 1844, when there was no war imminent in India—when, in point of fact, war did not break out until 19 months afterwards, when there is nothing in history to show that the authorities of this country had the smallest idea that they were to be engaged in war—10 officers exchanged out of the regiment in a legitimate manner—for the noble Lord says so to-night—their places were filled by others, and the regiment went to India. And the noble Lord has not adduced an instance of another regiment going to India in which the same thing occurred. It can, therefore, be only a very exceptional case in which such, a number of officers did exchange at that period. Now, what would have happened if the arrangements of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell) had then been in existence? Exactly

  467
  the same thing might have happened. Supposing the arrangements of the noble Viscount to have been in operationin 1844, what was there to prevent the officers from exchanging? No doubt, the number was exceptional. I think such a thing is not likely to happen under the present system and the present régime, and therefore I hold that the noble Lord laid a great foundation for the view which was taken of his remarks—not only in this House, but by persons out-of-doors, who, probably, spoke to him on the subject. But after having dealt with this particular case—and I may be permitted to say that in doing so he spoke in very disparaging terms of military men in general—the noble Lord went on to say—
  "He was only too well able to confirm what had been stated so emphatically by Lord Clyde when he deplored the facilities given to officers to exchange when they were in dangerous foreign climates. If there was one thing which destroyed discipline more than another, it was when a regiment was on a distant frontier, when perhaps every third man was down, and when officers left their men to sicken while they sought healthier or more comfortable quarters. Were not such officers open to the same imputation as though they were actually guilty of misconduct?"—[Ibid.]
  I say that is a libel on the officers of the Army. And what did the noble Lord go on to say? That "he did not mean to say that such things occurred." Well, then, if he did not, he had much better not have mentioned them; because, if they do not occur, his words mean nothing; and, if they do occur, I maintain that the noble Lord is bound to prove what I call a libel on the British Army. My Lords, I am sorry I have been obliged to trouble you on this subject; but having been so pointedly alluded to—the noble Lord having spoken of my claiming the monopoly of supporting the honour of the Army—I felt called upon to make these observations. I shall say no more at present except this—that I do not think the noble Lord's remarks on that occasion were such as I should have expected from a General Officer on full pay and holding a very high command.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise for the purpose of expressing a hope that it may not be necessary to prolong this discussion. If the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) found that the impression had got abroad that he had attacked the
  468
  honour of the officers and the present administration of the Army under the illustrious Duke, he had a right to take the first opportunity of clearing himself of that imputation, and, as a gallant and distinguished Officer, of disclaiming any intention of that character. I do not deny that the noble Duke had a right to reply to the imputation which he supposed had been made of claiming a monopoly of defending the honour of the British Army. But what I believe to be the case is this—we are all equally alive to the honour of the British Army, and that it is perfectly possible, while discussing those passing changes which relate to the discipline and future of the Army, to use arguments to show that one change is more beneficial than another for that discipline and that future, without exposing oneself to the slightest imputation of implying that feelings of dishonour influence the British Army, and without casting upon it one word of censure.
  Bill reported, without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Twelve o'clock.