Sitting of 13 May 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 209].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Seats (Peers of Ireland) * [170]; Metropolitan Police (Surgeon, Clerk, &c. Superannuation) * [172]; County Coroners (England) * [174]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) * [173]; Pharmacy* [175]; Glebe Loan (Ireland) * [176]; Justices (Dublin)* [171].
First Reading—Agricultural Holdings (England) * [177]; Public Entertainments* [178]; Saint Paul's Cathedral (Minor Canonries) * [179].
Second Reading—National Debt (Sinking Fund) * [142]; Customs and Inland Revenue* [158]; Local Authorities Loans [123]; Endowed Schools Act (1868) Continuance * [161]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) * [167]; Towns Rating (Ireland) [139], debate adjourned.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Metropolis Gas Companies * [82].
Committee—Report—Sale of Food and Drugs (re-comm.) [168]; Bishopric of Saint Albans [95]; Friendly Societies* [2–169].
Considered as amended—Metalliferous Mines* [120]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [143]; Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) * [79].
Withdrawn—Municipality of London* [61].

ARMY—MILITIA ARMS STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for War, If Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make any allowance, in the nature of rent, for buildings originally provided and still maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, so long as they continue to be used for the purpose of storing the arms of Militia regiments?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, it is under consideration to make allowance in the nature of repairs or a moderate rent, or both, for the buildings referred to, so long as they continue to be used for the same purpose. No provision was made for such an allowance under the Military Forces Localization Loan, and I am advised that the counties have no legal claim until a reasonable time has elapsed for supplying other storehouses.

NAVY—WIDOWS AND CHILDREN OF SAILORS AND MARINES.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a scheme put forward in the "Army and Navy Gazette" of the 3rd of April last, for the organization and maintenance of a Fund for making provision for the widows and children of Sailors and Marines; and, whether he has considered how far the advantages named in such scheme could be reasonably expected to be realized on the basis proposed?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the scheme referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has
580
been examined by the Accountant General, and his Report shows that no such provision as that proposed could possibly be made for widows and children in return for the contributions proposed to be levied, even if the whole of the continuous service men and a large number of boys, besides all the Marines and Coast Guard, were to subscribe, which would be very unlikely.

CRIMINAL LAW—COSTS OF PROSECUTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will avail himself of the power of the Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 55, and sanction the payment to prosecutors and witnesses detained for a night at the Somerset Quarter Sessions, of allowances similar to those paid in adjoining Counties?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, the existing rate of allowance to prosecutors and witnesses detained for a night at Quarter Sessions in certain counties was fixed by Sir George Grey, when he was Home Secretary. The Secretary of State had power to revoke the regulations issued under the present law with regard to this subject, and if the justices of Somerset had applied to the Home Secretary to alter the scale, no doubt it would have been conceded. The justices could make the application whenever they thought proper; but up to that time he was not aware that any formal application for the purpose had been made to the office.

REGISTRAR OF MARRIED WOMEN'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to abolish the office of Registrar of Married Women's Acknowledgments; and, if so, whether, as that office is now vacant through the death of the registrar, the appointment of a successor will not be carried out in order to avoid a claim for compensation?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the idea of abolishing the office alluded to. A vacancy occurred some time ago, and he was informed that an

581
appointment was made by the Lord Chief Justice, which was notified to the Treasury on the 7th of May.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that as far as he was aware no condition had been made by the Treasury when the present holder of the office was appointed that, in the event of the office of Registrar being abolished, no compensation should be given.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Treasury had no power to compel the person appointed to enter into the condition referred to.

POST OFFICE CLERKS—INCREMENT OF SALARIES.—QUESTION.
MR. R. SMYTHasked the Post-master General, Whether the Clerks in the Post Office have a vested interest in the annual increments to their salaries, or whether these increments can be withheld from them for other reasons than personal misconduct?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the clerks in the Post Office have no vested interest in the annual increments to their salaries, which are granted for good conduct, and no increment is allowed to a clerk without a certificate that his conduct during the year has been in all respects satisfactory.

HIGHWAY EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAGETasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the annual Return (Letter D) of the Local Government Board, presented in January last, gives the total expenditure by overseers on account of Highways up to Lady Day 1874, it would not be possible to expedite the publication of the annual Abstracts of Highway Expenditure under the Act 12 and 13 Vic. c. 35. the last Return of which only brings the accounts up to Lady Day 1872?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to expedite the publication of the abstracts referred to, and that he had given directions having that object in view.

METROPOLITAN BRIDGES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES HOGGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the fact that Committees of this House have reported that tolls on Metropolitan Bridges seriously impede traffic, and weigh with excessive severity on the poorest classes, and also in view of the fact that the present and late Governments have refused to sanction the plans of the Metropolitan Board of Works (brought forward in the Sessions of 1873 and 1875) for raising the necessary funds by means of the coal tax, which was the plan adopted by Parliament in the case of the Kew and other Thames bridges, the Government is prepared to give their approval to the enfranchisement of the bridges by borrowing on security of a county rate on the counties of Surrey and Middlesex, or to suggest any other course for attaining the object in view?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had fully considered the matter to which the Question of the hon. Member referred, and to the proposal that was made for raising a sum of money on the security of the coal and wine dues; and they had seen several deputations on the subject, all entertaining very different views respecting it. He had brought the matter before his Colleagues, and they felt that it was a course which they could not sanction. He was now asked whether he could say, on the part of the Government, that they would be prepared to give their approval to another course, or whether they could not themselves suggest some other. He did not see, however, that the difficulties they might meet with in considering another plan might be as great, and he therefore could not commit himself or the Government to any plan whatever; but any proposal brought before them should receive careful consideration.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1871—PICKETING.—QUESTION.
MR. PENNINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of The Queen v. Hibbert and others, tried before Baron Cleasby at the Old Bailey on May 5th and 6th instant for conspiracy against the provisions of

583
"The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871," to molest by watching and besetting with intent to coerce, and to the contention by the counsel for the defendants that "to coerce" was not intended to apply to peaceable and orderly watching and persuasion, but was enacted against disorderly conduct calculated to produce fear or intimidation; if he is in a position to give any information to the House whether the sense contended for was in accordance with the intention of Parliament as expressed by the framers of the Act; whether his attention has been called to the charge of the Recorder of London to the Grand Jury, who laid down the Law accordingly, and also to the remarks of the learned Judge, who, in passing sentence, expressed his
"Feeling that the defendants did what they did, believing that under the Law as it existed they were only doing that which they had a right to do. There were difficulties in regard to the Law on the matter, and they might have acted under such a supposition as he had indicated;
whether under all the circumstances, as there is no appeal, the learned judge declining to reserve the case, he will advise the extension of the prerogative of pardon to the defendants; and, whether the Government will in the promised Bill to amend the Law, seek to make clearer the meaning of the Legislature?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, his right hon. Friend's attention had been called to the case in question, and to the arguments used by counsel. With regard to the intention of Parliament it did not appear, from the usual records of the debates in the House of Commons, that the framers of the Act intended that peaceable persuasion should be made punishable; but an explanation of the Act was made by the Recorder in charging the Grand Jury. The same explanation was given by Baron Cleasby, in his charge to the jury on the trial of the defendants. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury found a true bill against the prisoners, and the other jury returned a verdict of guilty against them, and in the latter verdict Baron Cleasby expressly concurred. Under these circumstances it would appear that the acts of the prisoners amounted to something more than peaceable persuasion. The Secretary of State saw no reason for dif-
584
fering with the opinions expressed by the Recorder and by the learned Judge, and therefore he did not intend to interfere in the case. His right hon. Friend thought he was not called upon to state the intentions of the Government as to the amendment of the Act until he introduced the Bill, which he proposed to do after Whitsuntide.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Budget will be brought forward this Session at an earlier period than usual?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, Sir, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring on the Indian Budget at an earlier period than has been the custom in late years. I must add that previous Governments have shared this intention, and therefore I sincerely hope that circumstances will this year enable us to realize our intentions.

ARMY—SUBALTERN SUBSTITUTES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK (for Major BEAUMONT)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, when Captains hold appointments in the Topographical or Adjutant General's Department for five years without being seconded, he will consider the case of Subalterns who may, in consequence, be called upon to do the duty of their senior Officers?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that in the absence of their commanding officers, the command of their companies naturally devolved upon the subalterns in accordance with the custom of the Service, and was not held to be one of those duties for which extra pay should be given.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can name the day after Whitsuntide on which the Public Works Loan Acts Amendment Bill will be brought forward; and, whether it will be taken as the first Order of the Day?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that from the importance of the measure, and the fact that the hon. Member intended to challenge the whole policy of the Government with reference to it, the Government would take care that a fair opportunity was given of discussing the question. He thought Monday, the 24th, would be a convenient day for bringing it on.

THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—CONTEMPT OF COURT.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the absence of the Home Secretary, of which he had given verbal Notice, but which had not appeared upon the Notice Paper in consequence of some irregularity in its form, in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no action would be taken upon the Petitions which had been presented to the House relating to the proceedings taken for contempt of Court and other incidents of the Tichborne Trial. According to the last reports those Petitions had been signed by upwards of 250,000 persons, and he had reason for believing that they now amounted to upwards of 300,000. He wished to know, Whether the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in the matter had received the approval of the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges whose conduct had been impugned in those Petitions?
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of Order.
MR. WHALLEYventured to ask the permission of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to state what he believed were the irregularities which had occurred in the course of the trial.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that was precisely the irregularity which, as he had pointed out to the hon. Member, could not be permitted.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished further to ask, with reference to speeches reported in the public journals as having been made by the Lord Chief Justice at public banquets and elsewhere, calling for public indignation against those who had, by Petitions to Parliament or otherwise, expressed dissatisfaction with the proceedings in the Tichborne Trial, and stating that such
586
persons or some of them were seeking for their own purposes to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take notice of that language as being inconsistent with the dignity and authority of the Lord Chief Justice, and whether, in the absence of the inquiry demanded by the numerous Petitions which had been addressed to that House, it was calculated to maintain or restore public confidence in the administration of justice—
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was now asking for an opinion as to the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice, which was irregular.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Peterborough could hardly expect him to answer a Question of that kind which had not been put on the Paper. If it was placed on the Paper, it would no doubt receive the attention of the Home Secretary.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course would be taken with regard to the Friendly Societies Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked what was the latest hour at which the second Order of the Day—the second reading of the National Debt (Sinking Fund) Bill—would be proceeded with, and whether under any circumstances the next two Orders—namely, the Committee on the Savings Banks Bill and the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill—would be taken that evening? On Monday last the Secretary of State for War held out some hope that the Government would be able to state on what day the adjourned debate upon the Publication of Debates and the Exclusion of Strangers might be taken. Perhaps some information on the point could now be given, and perhaps also it could be stated whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, with regard to the adjourned debate on the question of Privilege, that it must of course come on after the Whitsuntide holidays, and that

587
he would communicate with the noble Lord with the object of fixing a day which would be convenient to the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERintimated, with regard to the National Debt Bill, that he would not propose to take the second reading after half-past 10 o'clock, but that he hoped it would be reached at an earlier hour. As to the Savings Banks Bill, he thought it would be more convenient to have the Committee after the holidays. As regarded the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, he was not aware that there was any opposition to it. A good many Amendments on the Friendly Societies Bill had been notified by himself and by other Members, and he thought it would be convenient to go into Committee pro formâ on that measure with a view to having it reprinted. If that was done, he would propose that the discussion should be taken on Monday, the 31st instant.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—COUNTS OUT.
MR. DISRAELImoved "That the House, on its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next."
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid: I rise with reluctance to call the attention of the House to the restrictions which have taken place on the opportunities which private Members have to bring before the House questions which they consider of importance to their constituents, and more particularly to the action of the Government with regard to the Sitting on Tuesday last. Four weeks ago I balloted for an opportunity of making a Motion. I was fortunate enough to have the first place for Tuesday afternoon. This Motion was of considerable interest to my constituents, and not only to them, but to the farmers of England and Scotland. I did not intend to anticipate the discussion which will, no doubt, take place on the measure now before the other House of Parliament; but I wished to make a statement with regard to some collateral matters which, I think, would have been of considerable importance to Members in coming to a conclusion with regard to that measure, and without which I do not think it can be fairly or properly discussed. On Monday afternoon the Prime Minister
588
suddenly informed the House that there was to be a Morning Sitting next day for the discharge of Government Business. In this way the most important part of the day—from 2 to 7 o'clock—was taken up by the Government, leaving for private Members only after 9 o'clock. I did not offer any opposition to the Government proposition, because I was unwilling to offer any obstacle to the conduct of Public Business, and because I believed there was an honourable understanding on the part of the Government that when they took an afternoon Sitting on a day devoted by the usage of the House to Private Business they would make some reasonable effort to make a House. Now, what I have to complain of is, that instead of making any effort to make a House, I have reasonable grounds for believing—and, indeed, the facts were such as to make me believe—that they had the power to make a House at 9 o'clock, and did not do so. I came down at 9 o'clock, and as soon as I rose to address the House, a few minutes after 9 o'clock, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) rose from the bench immediately behind the Treasury Bench to call attention to the number of Members present. I do not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of having any special interest to prevent the discussion of the Motion I was about to bring forward—indeed, he seemed to think, from the manner in which he discharged the duty, that he was vindicating some great constitutional principle, that there should always be 40 Members in the House; but I think, considering the tenacity with which he clings to the Treasury Bench, the intervention of the occupant of that bench would have been sufficient to induce the hon. and learned Member to restrain his impatience for five minutes, when a sufficient number of Members would have been present. What was the state of things when the House was counted out? On the Treasury Bench there had been previously two Members of the Government. One of these Members retired behind the Chair; there were also, I have reason to believe, in the Lobby of the House, three or four Members who usually sit on that side of the House, and are understood to be very amenable to the influence of the Member of the Government who is charged with the duty of making a House. Altogether,

589
on the opposite side of the House there were not more than five members out of the 36 who were present. Under the circumstances, if the Government had wished to make a House, they had the power to do so. I must also, in fairness, state that on the front Opposition Bench there was not a single Member, and if it had not been for the Members from Ireland, who were good enough to come down to make a House, the number of Members present would have been very restricted indeed. I have felt it my duty to state publicly these facts, that agricultural constituencies may judge of the amount of attention which questions affecting their interest command from the two leading Parties in this House; and I think it right also to state thus publicly the difficulties and obstructions placed in the way of independent Members when they desire to bring forward for the consideration of the House, Motions which may be considered inconvenient by the Leaders of the House.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Forfarshire had brought forward a grievance, perhaps the House would permit him also to state his complaint. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman appointed as the First Order of the Day a question in precedence to the usual Motion of Supply, and he did that by obtaining the consent of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) alone, without consulting any of the other hon. Members who intended to avail themselves of the opportunity of bringing forward Motions upon going into Committee of Supply. That appeared to him to have been a most unusual and a somewhat unfair course of proceedings He should be glad to have some assurance that the Government would in future, if Supply was left upon the Paper on a Friday night, not deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of speaking upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the difficulty in which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has found himself, affords but one illustration out of many of the hopeless position in which the unofficial Members of this House find themselves with respect to the Business they introduce. This difficulty has arisen with respect to Notices of Motion; but the confusion which the Order Book exhibits, among the Bills
590
introduced by the unofficial Members of this House, appears simply inextricable; unless now, or after Whitsuntide, some system of reviewing the contents of the Order Book be adopted, and the House should decide which of the Bills introduced by unofficial Members of the House are worth retaining, as likely to become law. I desire, especially, to refer to the position of the Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill. [Ironical cheer.] Hon. Members must not, for one moment, suppose that I misunderstand the meaning of that cheer. It proceeds from those who desire to perpetuate that which I consider the undue multiplication and extension of these establishments, and to shield them from all inquiry. With this object, they have adopted that which I may describe as the policy of confusion, with respect to the Business of the House; their purpose being to prevent any matters connected with these establishments from being considered by the House. For this purpose, they have loaded the Order Book with Bills they never expect to pass, have written it full of Notices of Motion, entered for the mere purpose of obstruction, and have resorted to every stratagem and means of delay. This policy of confusion has been pursued with marvellous success during the last four or five Sessions; with such success that, although the Bill has been introduced in each of the past five Sessions, including the present, it has only once been possible to bring the Bill on for second reading. The question touched by this Bill is no small question, no in-significant matter; it involves a subject which has forced itself of late years on State after State, and Country after Country, in Europe, and has been dealt with successively by the Legislatures and Governments of those countries. The object of those who have adopted the policy of confusion is to prevent, to debar this House from considering anything connected with these Monastic and Conventual Institutions, and, as I have said, they have been marvellously successful in this process of incapacitating this House. Early this Session, I warned the House that for lack of due regulation in their Business, the unofficial Members—the great body of the Members of this House—were being incapacitated from the due performance

591
of their duties. I would beg the House to consider what is its principal function? It is that of being the tribunal before which whatever grievances may be felt by any section of the community may be brought, and in which remedies may be suggested and considered. Now, the multiplication of these Monastic and Conventual Institutions, the circumstances under which they exist, and their effects on society, is considered a grievance by hundreds of thousands of persons in this country, as their Petitions testify; and their Representatives are debarred from duly submitting their grievance for the consideration of the House by this policy of confusion. The House would never hear me remonstrate and complain, as I now do, of any decision on this subject at which the House might fairly arrive, however adverse that decision might be to my views. But I do warn this House against permitting a perpetuation of this policy of confusion, which precludes us from the performance of the duties we have been sent into this House to execute. When I brought this subject—the probable state of its Business towards the close of the Session—before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury replied, in substance, that the confusion prevalent in the Order Book in the Business introduced by the unofficial Members was, in his opinion, perfectly natural and legitimate; that the Bills they introduced could only be considered tentative; that, in short, so far as he was concerned, the unofficial Members might struggle with, and strangle each other as much as they chose; and that, if they got tired of that occupation, the Government would be very happy to accept any additional portion of the time allotted to them—in short, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government derived a legitimate advantage from the confusion which prevails in the Business of the unofficial Members. The Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill now stands for Friday, the 21st; the Government have on that night the right to give precedence to their own measures. I conclude that they will avail themselves of that right, and I give the right hon. Gentleman Notice, that I will on this day week ask him, Whether he will consent, after Whitsuntide, to appoint a Morning Sitting for the consideration
592
of the second reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill?
MR. LOCKEdeeply regretted the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) should have counted out the House on Tuesday night, inasmuch as he (Mr. Locke) had the Jersey Courts Bill on the Paper for that evening, and he believed his hon. and learned Friend was opposed to that Bill. He hoped, however, that it was not on that account that the House was counted.
MR. HART DYKE: Sir, I had hoped that this Session might have passed away without my occupying the attention of the House even for one moment; but as the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has rather pointedly alluded to me, I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Forfarshire seemed to lead the House to infer that it was possible for me to have asked the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) to have delayed the proceeding which he adopted. Now, the facts are these. I am sorry to say that I was too late in entering the House to delay these proceedings, and was just coming in when I heard the bell ringing. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. Member, I will be perfectly frank with him and the House. I did not use any strenuous efforts on Tuesday night. I believe that it has not been considered the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to keep a House on those nights which are devoted exclusively to the business of private Members. In the position which I occupy there is nothing more important than that I should consider the feelings and instincts of Members on both sides of the House with regard to these matters; and I am bound to say that on Tuesday a vast number of Members did express to me the most fervent hope that there would not be a House, and that a great proportion of these Members, curiously enough, represented constituencies exclusively North of the Tweed. Further than that, I have only one remark to make. I noticed that when the House was counted more than three-fourths of those present represented Irish constituencies. That struck me as a peculiar feature when the Motion was one affecting the conditions of tenancy and land laws of Scotland. I can only add that if I had the least idea that hon. Members from Ireland were so intensely

593
anxious to keep a House on a question peculiarly affecting Scotland, and if they had expressed a wish to that effect to me, it would have been to me not only a pleasure, but a luxury to have met them.
COLONEL MUREsaid, after all the question before the House was a Scotch question, because the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay), who considered himself the spokesman of the farmers of Scotland, had given Notice that he would call attention to the melancholy relations at present existing between farmers and their landlords in Scotland. [Mr. BARCLAY: No.] Now, the real reason why the Scotch Members and other hon. Members did not come down to the House on that evening was because the Scotch Members especially were aware that there was nothing whatever in the relations between landlords and tenants of Scotland that called for the intervention of the hon. Member. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be out of Order for the hon. and gallant Member to discuss the merits of the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay).
COLONEL MUREsaid, he was simply about to remark in regard to the presence of 30 Irish Members to support the hon. Gentleman, that the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland were very different from those existing in Ireland. He believed he should be supported in what he said by the majority of the Scotch Members, when he stated that the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland at present were excellent.
MR. FORSYTHbegged to express to the hon. Member for Forfarshire his regret if he had put him to inconvenience, and to assure him that he had received no hint from the Government to take the course which he adopted on Tuesday evening. His action was entirely spontaneous and unpremeditated. When he came down to the House there were only 12 Members present, and as there was a prospect of a dull and tedious Scotch debate, and as only four or five Scotch Members were present, he called attention to the fact that not more than 40 Members were in the House. The number was at once raised to 36 by an influx of Irish Members. He had been in the House for five hours in the earlier part of the day; and as to what the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had
594
said, he assured him that he was not afraid to meet him on the Jersey Courts Bill, but he did not wish to be kept waiting until half-past 12, up to which hour the Bill might possibly have come on. He also thought the Speaker was entitled to some relaxation.
CAPTAIN NOLANvindicated the Irish Members for coming down on Tuesday night, because they thought an hon. Member who was supposed to represent the Scotch farmers ought to have an opportunity of stating the alleged grievances of that class. In his opinion, Morning Sittings were very disagreeable, and they did not at all advance Public Business.
MR. DISRAELI: I hope, Sir, there will be no further opposition to the Motion, which I feel sure will be pleasing to both sides of the House. I never favoured a "count-out," and I am quite sure that I have never contributed to one; but, at the same time, as a general observation, I must say that a "count-out" never takes place when the subject is one of general interest. I do not think the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has anything to complain of. He may have been unfortunate; but I do not think any combination of circumstances could bring about the result he deprecates, and which has given occasion to a very generous admission on the part of the Irish Members which ought to console him. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), however, made a distinct charge against the Government—that by putting Ways and Means instead of Supply upon the Paper as the First Order, they prevented him and other Members from exercising a Privilege to which they were entitled. I can assure the hon. Member that he is quite under a mistake; for by the Orders of the House, it is open to the Government to place either Supply or Ways and Means upon the Paper. We placed Ways and Means in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) should bring forward the subject of the financial propositions of the Government, and I believe we made that arrangement with the entire concurrence of the whole House.
MR. DILLWYNmaintained, that when the Government invaded those days set apart for private Members, they were bound to do their utmost to keep a House for them at the Evening Sittings.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEpointed out that there had been a great deal of time spent over questions of Privilege. Any hon. Member had only to say he had a question of Privilege to bring forward, and he immediately took precedence of all the private Members who had obtained by ballot a day for their Motions. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had an everlasting Motion to bring forward.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Reed.)
[Progress, 11 th May.]

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 83.] COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Proceedings against Offenders.
  Clause 21 (Power to justices to have articles of food and drugs analyzed).
  Page 7.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 5, after the word "by," to insert the words, "the chemical officers in the employment of the Inland Revenue Department, 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."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  To leave out from the words "and the expense," to the end thereof, in order to add the words, "and the expenses of such examination, analysis, and attendance, shall be deemed part of the expense of the executing this Act, unless the justices order the same to be paid by the complainant or the defendant."—(Mr. Grantham."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. RODWELLopposed the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey. He thought the Amendment, if adopted, would place the justices in a very invidious position. He much preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell).
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.
  DR. C. CAMERONsaid, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey, he felt it his duty to push his Amendment to a division. If the Inspectors were to be punished they would not work out the measure.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire. If the costs were put on the person who had committed the error, the provision would be a much more equitable one.
  Amendment (Mr. Pell) agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 22 (Appeal to quarter sessions) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (In any prosecution, defendant to prove that he is protected by exception or provision) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Defendant to be discharged if he prove that he bought the article in the same state as sold, and with a warranty. No costs except on issues proved against him).
  MR. RODWELLmoved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out "and with a warranty in writing to that effect;" his object being to relieve the retail trader of the necessity of producing a "warranty "from the wholesale dealer if he could prove in any other way that he sold the goods in the state in which he received them. He thought the production of the invoice would be quite sufficient.
  MR. MUNDELLAsuggested the substitution of the word "or "for the word "and." The dealer would then only have to prove that the article was in the state in which he purchased it, or have to produce a warranty to that effect.
  MR. RODWELLintimated his readiness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the assumption had been throughout that the retailer was to be responsible for the purity of the article which he sold, and it was quite evident that the Committee adhered to the principle that the seller should be held responsible, unless he could satisfy the Court that he was not guilty, and that somebody else was guilty. If the words referring to the warranty were left out, the retailer would

  597
  escape, and what remedy would the purchaser have? He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, even with the alteration suggested.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the hardship entailed upon the retailer by retaining the clause as it stood would be obviated if he were enabled to obtain a written warranty as to the quality of the goods he purchased from the wholesale dealer, such warranty to be a sufficient answer to any charge that might be brought, except as far as the person giving the false warranty was concerned.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, he thought it would be unfair to impose upon the retail dealer a penalty for selling a thing which he had purchased in good faith from the wholesale dealer.
  MR. VILLIERSsaid, the whole measure was a wholesale dealers' Bill, with the exception of the proposal that retail dealers should be entitled to obtain written warranties as to the quality of the goods which they purchased from the wholesale dealers. He hoped this security would be retained in justice to the retail dealing class. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) ought not to have proposed the Amendment unless he had authority to speak in the name of the retail dealers.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALheld that the general scope and object of the Bill was to protect the public, and to throw upon the retail dealer the onus of proving that he did not sell adulterated articles. If the words proposed were struck out, the justices who had to try cases would be at the mercy of the retail dealers. He thought that nothing could be easier than for the wholesale dealers to give the written warranties required by the retail dealers.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought it only just that the retail dealers should have something to fall back upon in the way of warranties from the wholesale dealers in reference to the goods they sold. The certification could easily be written on the invoice and that ought to be sufficient.
  MR. HENLEYwas of opinion that the written warranty of the wholesale dealer should be a sufficient answer to any charge of dealing in adulterated articles brought against a retail trader.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBEESsaid, he could not see how a warranty would be
  598
  the slightest protection to the retail dealer. If be obtained a warranty, and it was afterwards proved that the article he sold was adulterated, it would simply prove that he had adulterated it. These words could not, therefore, be left in at all, either with the words "and" or "or."
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYwas anxious that these words should remain in the clause.
  MR. MUNDELLAcontended that it was impossible for every person who sold a gallon of milk or a firkin of butter to give a warranty for it, as one was supposed to give in the case of a horse.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that the retention of the words of the clause as they stood was absolutely necessary. They would protect the retail dealer. He would simply have to prove that he sold the article in the same state in which he purchased it from the wholesale dealer.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought that if ignorance were to be pleaded by the retail dealer he ought to have a warranty from the wholesale dealer. It would be almost impossible to obtain a conviction under this clause, and he suggested the omission of the words "to that effect," which should be read in conjunction with a warranty in writing.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONrecommended the Committee to adopt the word "or," and give the retail dealer a fair chance of escaping.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, there was very great difficulty in defining the meaning of the word "adulteration," and this had been felt by the Committee. The wholesale dealer was as much at the mercy of those from whom he obtained the article as the retail dealer was at the mercy of the wholesale dealer. How could he tell whether the article sold to him was or was not adulterated? He (Sir Henry Peek) sometimes made contracts in the West Indies for certain marks of arrowroot; but if, when it arrived in the docks, a purchaser came to him and said—"Give me a warranty that it is genuine," he should instantly reply—" Not if I know it." He should tell anyone who wanted to buy to go and look at it in the docks, adding—" If you don't like it, don't buy it."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Committee would perceive

  599
  that, unless they retained these words, the principle of this Bill and the previous Acts must fall to the ground. He admitted that the clause might be rather hard on the retailer; but, on the other hand, all reasonable concessions had been made to him. To adopt this Amendment would be to depart from the pledge which the Government had given to retain the principle of the Bill unimpaired.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "Upon such proof the justices or court shall dismiss the case and may order the prosecutor to pay such amount of costs to the defendant as they may think fit."
  The object of this Amendment was to protect the retail dealer from any act of oppression under this Bill.
  MR SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to make the language of the latter part of the clause more clear; but the real effect of the Amendment would be to make the purchaser of adulterated goods, who had succeeded in proving the adulteration, pay the cost of the prosecution. This would be a monstrous proposal.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in line 22, to leave out from "prosecution" to the end, and insert—
  "But shall he liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecution unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will admit at the hearing the matters charged against him in the information."
  SIR HENRY JAMESconsidered that the Amendment was too vague in its terms.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpromised to further consider the subject before the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, there were three parties whose interest were to be considered in the Bill—first, the consuming public; secondly, the retailing traders; and, lastly, the wholesale dealers. The latter were the chief sinners in matters of adulteration, any adulteration committed by retail dealers being usually on a small and insignificant scale. Under the clause as it stood the interests of the consuming public
  600
  were not consulted at all; the retail dealer was protected, while the wholesale dealer escaped altogether. If the clause passed a regular traffic might be carried on in adulterated goods, and at the same time under a written warranty. He moved, in page 8, at end, to add—
  "When a defendant is discharged under the provisions of this section, the justices or court in their discretion may summon before them any person by whom, or by whose agent or servant, the warranty was given, and the like proceedings may be had against such person as if proceedings had been taken against him under the other provisions of this Act, and the same justices or court shall have jurisdiction for all the purposes of the new proceedings, notwithstanding that such person does not reside and is not found, and the article was not sold, nor the warranty given, within their jurisdiction: Provided, That no person so summoned shall be convicted unless he appear, or the justices or court are satisfied that the summons was served upon him personally or came to his knowledge."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that if the Amendment were passed, it would be impossible to know upon whom the function of prosecutor was to be devolved. He could only assent to the clause proposed on that question being placed beyond doubt.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, there were many legal difficulties against carrying out the Amendment. If adopted, alterations must be made in it to enable it to be put into operation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, said, that would be so. The Bill would be better without the Amendment. The retailer when he found he had an adulterated article sent to him by the wholesale dealer should be left himself to proceed against the wholesale man.
  MR. DODSONsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should prefer having further time to consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved the omission of the clause, which, though it had given rise to much discussion, was clearly satisfactory to nobody, and, as it stood, extremely complicated.
  Motion negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Application of penalties).
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH the following Amendments were agreed, to:—Page 8, line 28, after "constable," insert "of the authority who shall have appointed an analyst, or agreed to the acting of an analyst within their district; "page 8, line 28, after "to" leave out "the prosecutor," and insert "such officer, inspector, or constable."
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought that the period within which a person charged with having committed an offence under the clause might be prosecuted should be extended from six months to 12 months after the warranty.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would consider the point.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he thought that the penalties fixed by the clause were too severe, and would prevent magistrates from convicting under the Act.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHintended to propose on the Report that the words "not exceeding," which would give the magistrates the power of mitigating the penalties, should be inserted in the clause.
  Clause, with Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Punishment for forging certificate or warranty; for wilful misapplication of warranty; for false warranty; for false label), agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Proceedings by indictments and contracts not to be affected), agreed to.
  Expenses of executing the Act.
  Clause 28 (Expenses of executing Act).
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to throw the expenses of carrying the Bill into operation upon the poor rate in Ireland, which was paid by the owners and occupiers, in place of upon the grand jury cess, which was paid by the occupiers alone. Should the Government not assent to the Amendment he should feel bound to divide the Committee upon the point.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from the words "by the grand jury cess," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "from the poor rates."—(Captain Nolan.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Motion, on the ground that it would introduce the anomaly of having the appointments and the payments confided to different authorities.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsupported the Amendment, and said that the policy adopted in the clause represented a retrograde principle, from which the Government were obliged to depart the other evening in the case of the Explosive Substances Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHobserved, that in the Explosive Substances Bill a new charge was imposed for a new purpose, but that was not the case in the present Bill. If the charge in the present case was to be paid out of the poor rate there would be a great anomaly, as the guardians had no control over the appointment of the analysts.
  Question put, "That the words 'by the grand jury cess' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 38: Majority 67.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Special Provision as to Tea.
  Clause 29 (Tea to be examined by the customs on importation).
  MR. YEAMANmoved in page 10, line 10, after "stores," to insert—
  "But may be delivered for exportation with the sanction of the said Commissioners, and on such terms and conditions as they shall see fit to direct."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas unable to assent to the Amendment, which, if adopted, would prohibit the use of teas in this country, although the adulteration might be of a trifling character. He thought the Commissioners of Customs should have a discretion in this matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved in page 10, line 11, to leave out "unfit for human food," and insert "of a nature injurious to health."
  MR. MUNTZpointed out that "dried tea," although not "of a nature injurious to health," might be "unfit for human food."
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR HENRY PEEKmoved, in page 10, at end, to add—

  603
  "Tea afterwards proved to be in the same condition in which it has passed the Customs shall not render the vendor liable to penalties under this Act."
  Tea was commonly imported in large parcels technically called chops—the chests being all filled from the same heap—and it would consequently be easy to test samples which might be doubted by comparison with what might be left of the same chop remaining in bond.
  DR. C. CAMERONopposed the Amendment, which he believed was contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to the provision. It was not, he said, the practice of Customs to have anything to do with details after goods had passed out of bond.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONmoved, at end, to add the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, however, That before such tea be so finally forfeited and destroyed or otherwise disposed of, it shall be competent for the owner or owners, if he or they shall think fit, to call in and demand the opinion of three experienced sworn tea-brokers, and, in the event of the majority of the three persons so called in agreeing in opinion with the said analyst, then the said tea shall be absolutely so forfeited, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of; but in the event of the said tea being held and pronounced, by certificate in writing under the hands of the majority of such three sworn tea-brokers, to be of merchantable quality, it shall forthwith be delivered to the said owner or owners; and in any case the costs shall not be less than three guineas, and shall not exceed fifteen guineas in the whole, and shall be paid by the owner or owners making such appeal."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved that the best security against injudicious conduct on the part of the Customs was an appeal to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. If experience showed that such an appeal as that proposed was required, it could readily be provided for.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, that the power of destroying tea was one which ought to be very carefully used, more especially as a great deal of tea which came to this country was on foreign, and not on British account, and a different international question might easily be raised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Interpretation of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Provision for the liberty of a cinque port) agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Commencement of the Act) agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Title of the Act) agreed to.
  On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, a new clause (Application of the Act to Scotland) was added to the Bill.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, a new clause (Interpretation of terms in application of Act to Ireland) was added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 21st May, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

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

  [BILL 95.] COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (The number of bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased.)
  MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. ERNEST NOEL)moved, in line 21, to leave out from "and whenever," to the end of the clause, and insert "and the Bishop of the said See shall at no time have the right to sit or vote as a Lord of Parliament." At the same time, he acknowledged that he was not certain whether any Amendment was necessary in order to secure the object he indicated.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that as in the case of the Act creating the Bishopric of Manchester it was intended that the new Bishop should in the ordinary way have a seat in the House of Lords in rotation, and that the effect would be not to increase the number of Bishops in the House of Lords but to increase the number out of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Courts, officers, archdeaconries, and other incidental arrangements constituting the bishopric of Saint Albans to be provided by a scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, approved by Order in Council.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 4, line 28, after "Saint Albans," to insert—

  605
  "Provided, That from and after such division the canonry in the cathedral church of Rochester now annexed to the archdeaconry of Rochester and Saint Albans shall be permanently annexed to the archdeaconry of Rochester."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Trusts of Bishopric Endowment Fund.)
  MR. SALTmade the suggestion that it would be far more economical for the Commissioners under the Bill to invest their funds in Consols and similar securities than in landed estates the management of which was very costly.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought there was great force in the suggestion, but deemed it necessary to give the Commissioners power to invest in lands, inasmuch as they might have occasion to buy a house and some ground.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEwas of opinion that it would be easy to manage landed estates much more cheaply than it was done by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.

  [BILL 123.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it consisted of a good many clauses, but was yet a simple measure, the main object of which was to alter the mode in which local authorities were now empowered to contract loans. Those authorities had powers given them by Acts of Parliament to contract loans for certain purposes. Some of those Acts were local Acts authorizing a particular borough or body to borrow money for specific purposes; others gave powers generally to all bodies under Bills like the Public Health Bill or the Artizans Dwellings Bill. The powers so given were subject to certain provisions. For example, the bodies thus borrowing were bound to go
  606
  to the Treasury or the Local Government Board, or in certain cases to the Home Office, and show that they had authority to borrow; that they had not exhausted that authority; and that they had complied with all the statutory provisions in regard to the new loan they were proposing to contract. Then they were authorized by the proper Department to go into the market and contract the loan. Sometimes they obtained the money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; but in the great majority of cases they obtained it in the open market. But they were obliged to borrow by rather a cumbrous process. There must be mortgage deeds, and considerable legal expenses had to be incurred; while the lenders of the money were, to a certain extent, bound to see not only to its application, but he believed also to the observance by the authorities of the provisions of the law as to the keeping up of a sinking fund, and other matters of that sort. Again, if any person who had lent money to those bodies wished to realize a part or the whole of his advance he could only do it by a transfer of the mortgage—an expensive and troublesome business. On the other hand, the authority that wished to contract additional loans must do so by the issue of new securities and by means of a new mortgage; and after all those new arrangements were not as public as it was desirable they should be. Complaint was justly made of the cumbrousness of their present system of Local Government. They found themselves embarrassed by the action of so many different Boards, each possessing powers which it exercised without reference to the others. Unnecessary delay and confusion arose, the various bodies were hampered, and the natural effect of all that was to raise the rate of interest against them. The provisions of the present Bill were simply these:—That for the future local authorities proposing to borrow should borrow by a system of debentures, to be issued for not less than £10 or more than £1,000 each; and that those debentures should be presented to the Local Government Board to be stamped. Before stamping them the Local Government Board would ascertain whether the local body had authority to raise the money and had complied with all the statutory provisions, and on finding that it was entitled to

  607
  borrow a certain sum, say £1,000, a debenture to that amount would be stamped. It was hoped that those debentures would pass easily from hand to hand, and be a very marketable security. The local body would at the same time register the debentures, and the effect of that would be that after a time there would exist at the central office a complete registry of their liability. That would enable persons who wished to lend to ascertain the exact amount of the indebtedness of the borrowing body. The 13th clause of the Bill also provided that the accounts should be sent to the Government, and that there should likewise be an audit of the accounts of the local authority once a year in such manner as the Local Government Board might from time to time direct. The object of that was to secure the proper and due appropriation of the monies raised by loan to the purposes for which the parties were authorized to borrow it. He did not propose to go so far as to introduce a Government audit of the general accounts of local authorities. That was a step which he thought would be rather too strong for the House to take. A Committee which sat last year, under the presidency of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), inquired into that subject, and came to the conclusion that it would not be possible for the Government to attempt to institute an audit in the case of local expenditure generally. But with regard to that class of expenditure which would be provided for out of loans, which was specially authorized by Act of Parliament, and which would be more or less supervised by the Government, as, for instance, in the matter of stamping those debentures, it appeared to him to be both just and right that there should be a proper audit of the application of that money, and also of other money applied to the same works. For example, in the case of the construction of a sewer, the audit ought not only to extend to the money which might be borrowed for the making of the sewer, but also to any money raised from the rates for the same purpose.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. HUBBARDremarked that "power to borrow" was the text of this Bill, and of a great many other Bills which came before them; but he thought that before the power to borrow was encouraged and facilitated, some provision should be made to secure the means of repayment. He regretted that ever this Bill came before them to facilitate the powers of borrowing, while the one Bill—the Valuation Bill—which ought to be brought forward, was never introduced. Until that Bill became law, none of the local authorities were certain as to where they were to find the means of repaying the loans which they made. He urged upon the Government to be less eager in putting forward these borrowing Bills, and to bring in without delay the Bill which must, sooner or later, come before them; and, in the absence of which, introducing such a Bill as the one under consideration, was like putting the cart before the horse. He confessed that he disliked the proposition that local authorities should establish a sinking fund. What guarantee was there that these local authority sinking funds, all over the country, would be treated with more respect than the great national sinking funds which had existed in former years, and which had been exploded one after another? He saw in the introduction of this system very great danger; and he thought it worthy of consideration, whether the example of foreign Powers, which extinguish their obligations by making them redeemable by drawing, should not be followed. He objected to the continuance of this process of loans, until the basis of valuation was settled, and the conditions fixed, on which the rates were to be levied, by which these loans were to be ultimately repaid.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the principles contained in the Bill must commend themselves to the consideration of the House. The fact of the exercise of borrowing powers being sanctioned by the authority of the Government, and the Government audit of the accounts would be productive of great good. It was proposed that debentures to be issued under this Act should be stamped by the Local Government Board. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the introduction of this practical measure to give increased confidence to investors in those local se-

  609
  curities without entailing any charge or liability on the State beyond the supervision of the accounts of local bodies affected by the provisions of this Bill. He dissented from the views of the preceding speaker respecting encouragement of the application of sinking funds by local authorities. It was very desirable to fix a period for repayment or amortization of all such loans; and as the Bill provided for the employment of several modes of effecting this object, he hoped it would meet with support from both sides of the House. There was one point of importance to be considered, and that was, whether there should be any maximum rate of interest prescribed beyond which the sanction of the Government should not be given. That, however, was a point to be considered in Committee; and, meantime, he cordially supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be no limitation of interest.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the sanction of the Government could not alter the nature of any legal contract into which local authorities might enter for advances on the security of rates. There was no doubt that it would enable them to obtain these advances on more reasonable terms. The question of audit, and its limitation, ought to receive careful consideration.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the Bill, so far as its general tenour went, was one which might be adopted by Parliament. He questioned, however, the advisability of extending these facilities for issuing bonds transferable by delivery down to local bodies of the standing of Poor Law Guardians. Again, he could not conceive anything more dangerous than that trustees under wills and settlements—considering the amount of property in their hands, and the extent of modern trusts, should be enabled, where not expressly forbidden, to invest in the debentures of any local Governing Body. He almost doubted the wisdom of some of the past relaxations of this character, but he thought the Court of Chancery would be horrified if they found that, under the plea of facilitating the issue of local loans, any trustees who might invest in the debentures of a particular Body, were to be at liberty to take the debentures of any local Govern-
  610
  ing Body. He trusted the Government would, before going into Committee, consider how that clause could be altered. Then, he understood his right hon. Friend to say that the Government would be empowered to appoint auditors for examining the accounts of local authorities, in so far as those accounts related to moneys borrowed under their special Acts and the present Act, but not in respect of their general financial powers. Now, the distinction here proposed to be made would, he believed, be found very inconvenient, if not altogether unworkable, in practice, and he hoped the Bill would be amended in that respect. In addition to that, he strongly urged that the auditing of those accounts should not be handed over to casual officials, but should be conducted under the authority and responsibility of the Audit Department, established under the Act of 1866. With the exception of the points he had referred to, he supported the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hubbard) seemed to think that this Bill was premature, because no Valuation Bill had been introduced by the present Government; but, if there was any ground for complaint, it was that such a measure had not been submitted to Parliament many years ago, because very serious burdens for executing public works had been imposed upon local bodies, whilst assistance in obtaining money had not in all cases been afforded to them, such as had been given in the case of the Sanitary Act and the Education Act. As to the indebtedness of the local authorities, no doubt it was large—amounting to about £84,000,000—but large as that sum was, it was not excessive, in view of the rateable value of property that had to be set against it. Great advantage had been obtained by the metropolis, from the cheaper means which had been afforded for borrowing money by the Metropolitan Board, and by the smaller bodies through them, and it was but fair that other parts of England should have a similar advantage. With regard to a Valuation Bill, that could be nothing more than a reforming and re-easting of the present system, under which the present assessment committees did the work. He did not think, therefore, that his right hon. Friend was open to the charge of putting the cart before the

  611
  horse, while he thought that the local authorities had reason to complain that such a Bill as that now before the House had not been brought in years ago.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 27th May.

METROPOLIS GAS COMPANIES BILL.

  [BILL 82.] SECOND READING.
  (Sir James Hogg, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Goldney, Mr. John Holms).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in moving, that the Bill be now read a second time, said, Sir, the question which I am about to deal with is a very serious one, and if the Bill should be read a second time I shall not object to the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. The wide spreading feeling in the metropolis with regard to gas has reference mainly to purity, illuminating power, and price, and on these points great dissatisfaction is expressed throughout the metropolis. The Corporation of the City of London and Metropolitan Board appointed committees to consider what was best to be done; and in doing this they naturally had recourse to the Committees of the House of Commons, to see what had been recommended on previous occasions, and they came to the conclusion that it would be best to deal with the question in a wide and comprehensive spirit. They decided to present to Parliament three Bills, one Bill for the independent supply, another for the purchase of the rights of the Companies, and a third, the one which I now ask the House to read for a second time. As to an independent supply, it was stated in the Report of the Committee of 1867 that the absence of such a measure prevented a settlement of the question. I think if I read two or three extracts, I shall show that the Metropolitan Board only acted in a proper manner in bringing forward that Bill. I am now quoting from a Report of Lord Cardwell's Committee, page 15—
  "In conclusion, therefore, your Committee have now to repeat the expression of our decided opinion, that either by the way of regulation or by the way of an independent supply, the consumer is entitled to a far more distinct control than he at present enjoys with respect to the supply of the metropolis, and if the Company decline to submit to arrangements, mea-
  612
  sures should be taken for a new supply in independent hands."
  Further on, they say, in the last clause but three—
  "The proper remedy would be for Parliament to concede to the City of London or the Metropolitan Board of Works or other local authority the power of supplying those districts in the manner in which the Corporation of Manchester supplies that city and its surrounding neighbourhood, and your Committee consider that the main cause of the want of legislation has been the absence of any Bill authorizing the establishment of an independent supply of gas in the hands of a local authority."
  I think that in the face of a Report of such a strong character as that, the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board were bound to bring in a Bill such as I have named. With regard to the Purchase Bill, I do not think I need take up the time of the House in discussing the policy of the purchase of Gas Companies when I find that the municipal authorities in Scotland, at Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and those in England, at Manchester, Leeds, Oldham, Nottingham, and Birmingham, have adopted it. I think, therefore, I may say that the principle of municipal authorities having the control of the gas has been entirely conceded by Parliament. Furthermore, the Chartered Gas Company brought in a Bill in the present Session for the express purpose of enabling their undertakings to be purchased by the Metropolitan Board, and therefore I think I may say that they have also conceded that principle; and, furthermore, we have recently had brought before us a proposal from the Imperial Gas Company to ask upon what terms the Metropolitan Board would purchase their undertaking. With regard to the Chartered Gas Company, I am bound to say that the propositions contained in their Bill were such as no municipal authority would have thought of entertaining for one moment, because they were of an extravagant nature; but, still, that was a matter of detail which a Committee would go into. I may be asked, and I have been asked, why I thought it necessary to bring in three Bills, and that these three Bills should all go before a Select Committee of the House of Commons? I may be asked why were two of these Bills withdrawn before they came to the second reading? The answer is clear and simple—because I am not in the habit of keeping up fruit-

  613
  less discussions; and it having been intimated to me that any discussion would have a fruitless character, and that I would have opposition which would have ensured the success of that opposition, I thought that the proper course would be to rely upon the Metropolis Gas Companies Bill, which is merely a regulation Bill, and which now I ask to read a second time. Before going into the details of the Bill, I may mention that prior to 1868, nine of the large Companies were regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1860; and excepting three of them—the Chartered, the Imperial, and the South Metropolitan, the legislation of 1860 now regulates their management. That Act of 1860 incorporated the Gas Works Act of 1847; and it is necessary for me to refer to that Act, because it distinctly recognized the interest of the consumer, for it expressly states that the surplus profits shall be applied to the reduction in the price of gas. As far back as 1847, the principle was announced that the consumer was interested in the reduction of the price of gas; and it was also recognized that consumers were interested as regards the profits of the undertaking. And this was also carried out by the City of London Gas Act of 1868 and other Acts which, in a distinct manner, show that this principle ought to be insisted upon. A clause in the Act of 1868 states this principle most distinctly—
  "They shall fix such illuminating power and such price as shall be calculated—the Company to use due care in the management of its business to earn the full dividend."
  [Read on!] Do you wish me to go on? I only wish you to see that I can quote authority for what I say, and I will not take up one moment too much of the time of the House. Well, the Acts of 1847 and 1868 having shown that due care ought to be insisted upon, I do not think that the consumers, through the municipal authorities of the City, the Corporation of the City of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works, are doing anything at all wrong in asking the House of Commons to reconsider this question. It is no novel principle at all, and all that we want to do is to make effectual enactments, the principles of which have already been recognized. Another point is with regard to the rate of dividend. The maximum is
  614
  fixed as 10 per cent; and that is in the Act of 1847, Clause 30. The Act of 1868 also recognizes that, and says that it shall be only "after due care and management." Having explained the principles, and what the Metropolitan Board and the City wish, I may mention that both these Bodies were impressed with the earnest belief that Parliament not only desired due care and proper ma nagement on the part of the Companies, but also to secure that object by giving the shareholders an interest in economical management; and looking at the various proceedings lately taken by the Board of Trade, they thought that the Companies had entirely failed, and al though the City had advanced arguments on behalf of the public, it could obtain no redress. In the case of the Imperial Gas Company the Board of Trade Commissioners got the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which was as follows:—
  "We think under the Imperial Gas Act of 1869 the Commissioners are precluded from inquiring into the question as to the mode in which that Company have raised or expended their capital, and the capital for the purposes of this inquiry must be assumed to be duly raised.
  (Signed)
  "JOHN KARSLAKE,
  "RICHARD BAGGALLAY,
  "E. WILLS."
  In the face of that opinion it was quite impossible for the Board of Works to go further before the Commissioners. Though Parliament has prescribed the amount of dividend, and laid down that due care should be used, we were precluded from going into questions whether due care had been exercised or not, especially with regard to the raising of the capital. There was another point with regard to the powers of the Companies of raising fresh capital and also the price that capital brought. Under existing circumstances, there seems to us—the Metropolitan Board—a very great inducement to raise capital in an undue way. For instance, £100 shares can be sold very shortly after being issued for £160 or £170; and I need not say that this is a great inducement to raise money for the undertaking. Having alluded to this, I will touch upon one or two other points of the Bill. I have been asked several questions as to the repealing of the clauses in the Act of 1860. The reason for the repeal is that it is desired to secure a uniformity

  615
  of legislation, and to adopt in the present Bill provisions which may not only apply to the Companies under the Act of 1860, but to those which have been dealt with by Parliament since that date. Now, as to Clause 6 of the Bill, which is most objected to by the Gas Companies, I must say that it seems to me as well as to my Colleagues that this clause, in fact, imports a very valuable provision, for it makes the whole of the shareholders, individually and collectively, deeply interested in the way in which the respective concerns are carried on; and it is done in this way. If a higher price should be charged than 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet within the metropolitan area the dividend is to be decreased. This will give all the shareholders an interest, and make them most anxious that their various directors should carry out this efficient and economical measure. Some say that this is a one-sided arrangement. Possibly it is. But when this goes to a Committee, I am sure that the Metropolitan Board who have charge of this Bill will be most anxious in every way to meet the views of those who thought that the sliding scale ought to go in an opposite direction; and if the Gas Companies, by good regulations and by great economy, find they are able to reduce the price of the gas, then the shareholders will benefit. Another point is the illuminating power. I want to make it clear, with regard to the illuminating power and the price of gas, that throughout the metropolis the consumers of gas have got some slight cause of complaint. I will take 1874. I find that the Gas Light and Coke Company charged 5s. per 1,000 cubic feet, giving 16 candles; the Imperial 4s. 8d., giving 14, while the South Metropolitan only charge 3s. also of 14 candles; the Commercial charge 4s. giving 12 candle gas. So that the price of gas varies from 3s. up 6s., and that was during the time when coal commanded rather an exceptional price. Coming to 1875; I will just give the same Companies. Gas Light and Coke Company 3s. 9d., giving 16 candles; the Imperial 3s. 9d., 14 candles; the South Metropolitan 3s. for 14 candles. I may say that it is the desire of those who promote this Bill—the City and the Metropolitan Board—that throughout the whole of the Metropolis we should get a good and pure gas of 16 candles at the rate of 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet.
  616
  That is the principle of the Bill. Another point is the question of referees, who will prescribe and certify the mode to be adopted for testing and recording the illuminating power and pressure of gas, and who will do a variety of other things. The proposition of the Bill is that one should be appointed by the Gas Companies; another should be appointed conjointly by the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board, and the third will be appointed by the Board of Trade. We think that the establishing of these three referees will be the forming of a very excellent and very efficient body. There are other provisions in the Bill of a secondary character, but they are simply for enabling the Act to be worked out and do not touch any vital principle. I only hope that the House will agree that the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board have endeavoured to approach this somewhat difficult task in an impartial spirit; and although they may touch somewhat the rights of the Gas Companies, it does seem to us that Parliament who has regulated them on many previous occasions may be very well called upon to regulate them again in an equitable manner. In conclusion, all that I can say is this—that I put it to the House, and ask them whether they consider that unity of management, that unity of price, and the same illuminating power for gas is or is not desirable in this metropolis? If the House thinks it is desirable to have this unity of management, and illuminating power, and also price, they will read this Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee, where any details can be gone into and thoroughly thrashed out; and if they should unfortunately reject this Bill then the municipal bodies, whom I am glad to say upon this and other questions have been entirely in accord, will feel that they have done their duty to the consumers of gas in submitting a fair and comprehensive scheme for the judgment of Parliament to Act upon.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James Hogg.)
  MR. WHITWELLregretted that the second reading of this important measure should be taken in the absence of the hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Young), who took a deep interest in the subject, He knew of no instance in

  617
  which a bolder attempt was made to acquire the entire control of independent companies than was made in that Bill. He did not mean to say that it was not a right thing to do, or that it might not be for the benefit of the public; but he thought the House should be made fully aware that what was proposed was to give up the competitive interests of these companies, and place them under the entire control of three individuals. The Bill would be sure to meet with great opposition from the gas companies. As regarded keeping down the dividends to 10 per cent, it was quite evident that could be done without the public obtaining any advantage from it whatever.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Helston would not be the only one who would feel surprised at finding that measures which they thought would have been postponed were nevertheless proceeded with. Certainly, they had not had adequate time to discuss a measure of this importance; but as the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, that was an inconvenience which might be there remedied.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was sorry the hon. Member for Helston was not in his place on that occasion, but it was the hon. Member's own fault. This measure was certainly an important one, affecting as it did the Gas Companies; but it was also important as affecting the interests of the public. He allowed that, as now drawn, it might seriously affect the interests of the Gas Companies; and if the Bill passed in its present shape it might be said that Parliament had not kept faith with them. But he believed it to be possible that the Bill might be so amended in Committee as to keep faith with the companies, and to materially benefit the consumers. This being a matter which might be dealt with in Committee, all he had to do was to see that the Bill was referred to a strong Committee with the other two Gas Bills now before Parliament. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had consented to take charge of the Committee. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then he would move that the three Bills should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONwould impress upon the House that this Bill proposed to deal with property amounting
  618
  in value to something like £36,000,000. He did not think that the profits of the Gas Companies should be unfairly interfered with, and thought that, so far as the municipal bodies were interested in the matter, they would rather regard the illuminating power than the price.
  MR. YEAMANobserved, that the Bill would not only affect the Gas Companies, but the public to a very considerable extent. He thought it would have been much better if the Government themselves had introduced a Bill dealing with the Gas Companies. He could not help thinking the metropolis was far behind the great provincial towns, both in respect to the supply of gas and water. Edinburgh and Glasgow and other large towns had the water and gas supply entirely in their own hands, and the consequence was that those communities were not only well supplied, but supplied at the cost price. He hoped that the Government would support a proposal for transferring the works and business of the Gas Companies to the Metropolitan Board, so that there might be the best gas supplied at the cheapest possible rate. He should certainly support the measure before the House.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was rather surprised to hear the admission of the President of the Board of Trade, that if this Bill were passed in its present shape it would be a direct breach of faith with the Gas Companies. He did not think it would be his duty, after such a statement, to allow the Bill to be read a second time without a division.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would not divide the House upon that occasion; but that, if he designed to offer determined opposition to a particular clause, he would postpone it till the stage of Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) fully shared the doubt expressed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to some of the provisions of the Bill. Parliament could not be expected to sanction the 6th clause without considerable modification. At the same time, he thought the ground taken by the opponents of the Bill was scarcely tenable. He could not admit that the Gas Companies had a right to come to Parliament and say the Legislature could not interfere with their property so long as they did not pay more

  619
  than 10 per cent to their shareholders. He thought such a position would be a much more serious contravention of public policy than anything urged by those who were in favour of this Bill. The position of the Gas Companies was two-fold, some being under the Act of 1860 and some under that of 1869. The companies that were under the Act of 1860 had a more elastic range, while as regarded the companies under the Act of 1869 the range was more limited as to the prices to be charged. It was desirable that, as far as possible, all the Gas Companies of the metropolis should be placed on the same footing. The subject would undergo a searching investigation in the Select Committee, and on that ground he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, that this was the third of the measures introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works during the present Session, and the two former had completely failed—a fact which sufficiently proved the utterly untrustworthy character of that body. In regard to the present Bill—on the 9th of April last all the Gas Companies on the south side of the Thames were before the President of the Board of Trade as a deputation, and assured him that they were quite prepared and quite willing to amalgamate if the President so desired, and with a view to economy, on the terms of his letter of November last, and to insert clauses in the Bill to give the Metropolitan Board of Works powers of purchase at a fair price, to be ascertained by arbitration in the usual way, in the event of any difference. Indeed, the Phoenix Company, by arrangement, brought in a Bill this Session seeking power to amalgamate with all the Companies on the south side of the Thames, and to carry out the views of the President as expressed in his letter to which he had referred. With the leave of the House he would read one passage from the letter of the President of the Board on the 11th of November last; and he must say, in passing, that though he had somewhat against the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion, it was a real pleasure to go to the Board of Trade on any business, for a more courteous and painstaking Minister did not sit on the Treasury Bench. The passage he selected was as follows:—
  "It is said that two Companies, through whose
  620
  districts the very large main of another Company passes, are about to apply for increased capital to create a new source of supply immediately above this very main. The needless expenditure of material and labour, and, above all, the waste of gas arising from these causes must be very large, and if, by amalgamation and harmonious arrangements this waste could be prevented, there is every reason to believe that the annual expenditure of the Companies might be much less, and their incomes much larger than they now are. Under present circumstances it rests with the Companies them-solves to propose such arrangement, and if they fail to make the attempt, they lay themselves open to the observation that, being secure of their 10 per cent, they have no interest in promoting economy."
  Now, what happened? Why the Metropolitan Board of Works opposed the Bill, and threw it out on Standing Orders He asked the House to receive that Bill and to let it proceed and go to Committee, for the Phoenix Company were quite ready to carry out the views of the Board of Trade as expressed in the letter from which he had just quoted. The Imperial Company had a Bill for a similar object—namely, to amalgamate with the Companies on the north side of the Thames. The Chartered Company had already amalgamated with five Companies; so that if the House had allowed the Phoenix and the Imperial Bill for amalgamation to proceed, there would have been three Companies in the metropolis instead of 12. The Chartered and Imperial Companies on the north, with their new and gigantic works well away from the habitations of man, down in the marshes of Bow and Woolwich; and one on the south also away from dwellings on the Surrey Canal, where the South Metropolitan Gas Company had 30 acres of ground to cover. This would be fair and reasonable. It would not be abrogating the Parliamentary contract by the Act of 1860, or the subsequent legislation of 1868–9 1869. It would secure the public audit of all the Companies, and it would promote economy, while maintaining the illuminating power and purity of the gas. To show the unfortunate effect of this repeated harassing of the Companies, and of the attempted wild legislation by the Metropolitan Board of Works upon this subject, it was only necessary to mention that the Imperial and Chartered Companies, who, by the legislation of 1868 and 1869, had the price of gas reduced to 3s. 9d., with the illuminating power raised to 16 candles with the revision

  621
  clause, were in 1874 charging 4s. 8d. and 5s. for their gas, spending £10,000 in the process; whilst the other Companies not interfered with were charging generally 4s. The Bill now before the House laid down a hard-and-fast line as to price, purity, and illuminating power; but it was impossible for Gas Companies supplying a sparse district to furnish gas upon the principles there enunciated. The Complaints, to which reference had been made, as to the price of gas arose entirely out of the circumstance that in 1873 the price of coal advanced from 14 s. to 32 s.—more than 100 per cent. It was impossible, in that case, for the Companies to pay a 10 per cent dividend, without increasing the price of gas; but the price had since been diminished as the price of coal had been reduced. He trusted the House would reject the Bill now before it, or that, if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the President of the Board of Trade would take care that the existing Acts were not overridden, and that the rights of gas shareholders were not injuriously affected, as they would be if the Bill now under consideration was passed in its present form.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, which was in violation of a Parliamentary bargain made some years ago. After briefly sketching the history of gas legislation during the last 60 years, and dwelling particularly on what occurred in 1860, the hon. Member proceeded to remark that whereas the Phoenix Gas Company were only bound to supply 12-candle gas at 4s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, they would under this Bill have to supply 16-candle gas at 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. Could any one maintain, therefore, that the present Bill did not interfere unfairly with that company? If this principle were sanctioned, good-bye to any reliance on a bargain with Parliament for the future. Let hon. Members ask themselves upon what the title to their own property rested. Was there any that had a better foundation than Parliamentary sanction? Within the last few years we heard of the death of two men who never did a stroke of work for the pensions they received out of the taxes of this country, Lord Ellenborough and a descendant of Lord Thurlow, one of whom had £7,000 and the other £9,000 a-year. But nobody thought
  622
  of interfering with their rights. And why? Because they were secured by an Act of Parliament. This was not the first Bill brought in this Session on the subject of gas. Three had been brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The first was a Bill to purchase the Gas Companies at a price to be fixed by the Metropolitan Board. The companies would not submit, and the Bill was withdrawn. The second was a Bill to enable the Metropolitan Board to compete with the companies; another £13,000,000 was to be raised to do what was well done by the companies. That Bill was withdrawn for reasons best known to its promoters, and now came a third Bill in which the Metropolitan Board said—"If you won't sell, and if you won't allow us to compete, we will ruin you first and purchase you afterwards." He denied that there was any proof that the Metropolitan Board would supply gas to this great metropolis on better terms or more efficiently than the companies now did. He hoped the House would not admit the principle that where a Parliamentary bargain had been made and millions of money subscribed on the faith of it, it was possible that it could be revoked. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. DODDSseconded the Motion.
  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. Young.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that this was a very important question, as nearly 4,000,000 of people, the inhabitants of this metropolis, would be affected by the decision arrived at to-night. The principle of the Bill was sound—namely, that unity of management necessarily carried with it economy and efficiency. There was ample evidence to establish the fact that the local governing bodies of many large cities and towns in this country succeeded in supplying gas on moderate and satisfactory terms. No one could underrate the value to this great metropolitan community of the proper regulation and control of the supply of gas. Gaslight in London was of nearly the same importance to many as the light of day—the avocations of

  623
  the working classes and of the poor, as well as the comforts of the rich, were affected by it. Anyone who had had so long an experience of London as he had must be aware that much dissatisfaction was constantly expressed by all classes of persons respecting the purity and the price of gas. The whole subject demanded inquiry. As it was proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he hoped the House would agree to read it a second time without a division. He would be about the last man in that House to interfere with private enter-prize or vested rights; but he took it that the recommendation of a Select Committee would be that the vested rights of the various companies should be dealt with not only equitably, but liberally.
  MR. SAMUDAcomplained of the short notice hon. Members interested in this question had received that the second reading would be taken that night. With the principle of the Bill generally he was in accord and had no objection to it, as well as the two other Gas Bills, being referred to a Select Committee. It was right that the public should be protected by a Regulation Bill, and the general conditions of the Metropolitan Bill—with some few exceptions—he did not complain of. But he did complain of the interference of the Government with the proposals of the private companies. The Government, in fact, wished to impose terms on the companies as to the mode in which they should raise their new capital, and thus took on themselves to dictate both to the companies and the Committee of this House, to whose judgment the matter ought properly to be referred; and, acting under the influence of the Metropolitan Board, he supposed, thought it justifiable to insist on terms which it would be impossible to obtain. They said—" either you shall raise all your new capital on loan at 5 per cent, or you shall have an opposition to your project being passed." The Commercial Gas Company felt bound to reject these terms. He also thought the Government were acting on a mistaken notion in supposing that the interests of the public demanded that they should interfere in this way with private enterprize. If they thought that through the Metropolitan Board of Works or by any process of their own, they were in a position to purchase the
  624
  Gas Companies, he could not conceive that the companies would have any objection to sell their undertakings, and in such case it could make no difference in the amount to be paid for each undertaking how the capital had been raised, for the amount of purchase would be arrived at by fixing the number of years' purchase that should be given on the annual earnings of the company—as in the case of the Telegraphs—and the annuity of the company would form the only basis of purchase.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had reference not so much to the Bill before the House as to two private Bills enabling Gas Companies to raise additional capital. No doubt they might be coupled together. The question, however, was whether the present Bill should be read a second time with a view of referring it to a Select Committtee in company with the two Bills of the private companies. The remarks which had been made seemed to imply that the present system was by no means entirely satisfactory. There were irregularities which it was desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to get rid of, and it would be necessary to establish a uniform system which might be applied to the whole of the Gas Companies of the metropolis. That necessity was so obvious that it was unnecessary for him to dilate upon it. The Metropolitan Board of Works had originally proposed to take power to purchase all the Gas Companies of the metropolis. He confessed that his feelings was against such a proposal, and the influence of the Government was employed to induce them to withdraw the Bills brought in with that object. Those two Bills being dropped the question with the Metropolitan Board of Works was, whether, if they were shut out from a measure for supplying gas to the metropolis, they should introduce a Bill by which they might satisfactorily regulate the action of the private gas companies. With this view a Bill had been drawn up, the great body of the provisions of which were either satisfactory, or might be made so. The House would do well, therefore, to give a second reading to the present measure, so that it might be considered by a Select Committee, which he hoped might be a

  625
  strong one, and put into a proper shape. Special reference had been made to the 6th clause, limiting the price to be charged for gas to a certain standard. This clause stipulated that gas of 10-candle power should be charged 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet; and it was provided that if the price were increased, the dividend was to be reduced. That clause would, in his opinion, amount to a breach of faith, and was an unfair clause to be adopted. If that clause were to be considered an essential principle of the Bill, the House would, he thought, pause before it gave its assent. It would be, however, a pity to lose a Bill that seemed to be a good one in many respects, if the House saw its way to some omissions in, or modifications of, that Bill. If the Bill were now read a second time, and went to a Committee, it would be the duty of the Government to watch it carefully when it came back; and if that clause came back in its present shape, it would be impossible to allow the Bill to proceed any further. He believed, however, it would be possible for the Committee to consider and amend the clause, and to send down the Bill in such a shape that it might pass during the present Session.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he thought they were discussing the Bill under very exceptional circumstances. A great many hon. Members took a lively interest in this question, and some of them had gone away under the impression that the Bill could not be reached that night; and as any discussion which the House might arrive at in their absence would not be satisfactory, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that, having seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, it was not competent for him to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. R. SMYTHmoved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
  MR. RITCHIE, in opposing the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, said, it was of the utmost importance that the Bill should be read a second time that night. If the debate were adjourned it was impossible to say when it would be resumed. With respect to the
  626
  Gentlemen who had left the House, that was a matter which concerned them only. He hoped the House would not give its consent to the Motion to adjourn the debate.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he certainly understood that the second reading was fixed for that day week, and under that impression he had advised several weary Members who were interested in the subject to go home to bed.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he could not make out why an inquiry was resisted. It was admitted that the gas supplied by the companies was infamous, and, further, that something must be done to remedy the existing state of things. The Gas Companies received more than they were entitled to, and they had evaded every provision in every Act of Parliament which was intended to limit their charges. Under these circumstances, he should support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in reply, said: I do not think it is usual to move the adjournment of a debate when the matter has been so fully discussed as on the present occasion. This Bill came on for discussion soon after 9 o'clock, and it has now been on for more than two hours, and if it goes on for two hours longer I shall be happy to listen to all that may be said. As regards the hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Young), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) I regret extremely that they did not hear me introduce the Bill, because, if they had heard my remarks, they would not have spoken in the manner they did. Whenever I have been asked as to the time when I should bring in this Bill I have always said that I should do so even if it were 15 or 20 minutes past 12 o'clock. As regards the remarks on the postponement, I never gave, directly or indirectly, any intimation to any human being that I would not bring it on to-night. On the contrary, the only thing that was said was, that if certain provisions were not accepted by certain Companies Her Majesty's Government would try to afford me a day if I could not get on tonight. I must say that I did not expect it to come on so early, and to me it was a matter of extreme inconvenience. But I need not dilate upon this subject. I need not trouble you with any further observations; but I say that the state of

  627
  affairs in regard to gas is not satisfactory. This Bill is trying to put them in a more satisfactory position than they occupy at present. During the whole of the discussion the only serious objection taken is with regard to that 6th clause. All that I can say is, that the promoters will, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion and let the Bill go to a second reading, let that clause go to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and will let the Committee say whether it is suitable or not. I am quite prepared to say let that be done; and if the Committee of the House of Commons consider that we place too low a price, we are prepared to give the greatest consideration to the Committee selected by the House of Commons. I do not think I could say more; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the principle of the Bill was contained in the 6th clause, and he must vote against the Bill, so long as that clause remained in it. If it were omitted, then the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 147: Majority 110.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 67: Majority 75.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

TOWNS RATING (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]
(Mr. Butt, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Ronayne.)
TOWNS RATING (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Vance.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that as many of the Irish Members had left the House, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Nolan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not see why the debate should be again adjourned. The Bill was brought forward for the first time yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) in a short and moderate speech, and to all appearance there was a great desire, on the part of hon. Members from Ireland who sat opposite, for a division on the Main Question. He had himself risen at 25 minutes to 6 o'clock, and had endeavoured, as far as he could in five minutes, to state his reasons for opposing the measure; but it had been talked out by one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own supporters. And now the House was asked to assent to an adjournment, because many of those who advocated the Bill were absent. That he did not regard as a fair mode of dealing with the question.
  MR. BUTTthought, on the contrary, the interest of Ireland in the matter would not be fairly dealt with if the Motion for Adjournment were not acceded to. Over 1,000 voters—he had heard the number put at 2,000—had been disfranchised in the City of Dublin alone, because the same facilities were not given for placing men on the register as those which existed in England.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONbelieved the Bill was a most insidious measure, being a new Reform Bill in disguise. In the borough which he represented (Enniskillen) there was no grievance felt from the existing state of the law. He hoped the House would not consent to an adjournment of the Bill, but would throw it out by a large majority.
  MR. SULLIVANremarked that it was all very well for the noble Lord opposite to say what he did, when perhaps he owed his seat to the fact that a large number of people who ought to be his constituents were deprived of the franchise. What a terrible scare to that House, which sat under a Conservative Reform Bill, and to men like the noble Lord opposite to hear of another Reform Bill! This was essentially an instance of unequal law for Ireland. She would not be deceived by such proceedings as the present, but would declare in the presence of all Europe—he saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  629
  (Colonel Taylor) laughing. It was the only argument that he ever contributed to their debates; perhaps, because it was the kind he was best fitted to contribute. ["Oh!" and "Order!"] If he had said anything unworthy of the most friendly feeling—if his observation was more impolite than the hon. and gallant Member's laughter, he withdrew it. He urged that the clauses of the Bill were copied from the English list, and it was not asking too much to postpone the measure for a fortnight.
  SIR PERCY WYNDHAMcondemned the Bill. Ireland had hitherto been remarkably free from bribery and corruption at elections; but this Bill would put it into the hands of any one to agree to pay a man's rates in order to give him the franchise, which it would lower, while tending at the same time to corrupt practices.
  MR. GOSCHENdiffered from the hon. Member who had just spoken in his views with regard to the effect of this Bill. The hon. Member had said it would have the effect of lowering the franchise; but the franchise would surely remain at £4 in Ireland, whether this Bill passed or not. The question was whether those who were enfranchised by Act of Parliament were to be disenfranchised by overseers? He regarded this Bill simply as the application to Ireland of a system that had been applied to England. If it were an insidious attempt to lower the franchise the House would know how to deal with it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 127: Majority 75. Question again proposed.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved the adjournment of the House.
  MR. LEITHseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Henry Havelock.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Government would not persevere in trying to force the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to proceed with this Bill. The course which the Government were taking in trying to force the hon. and learned Member to proceed was most unfair. It was an unprecedented course.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would not have thought of asking the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) to proceed with the debate, had not the hon. and learned Member himself proposed to do so. [MR. BUTT: "NO!"] The hon. and learned Member for Limerick proposed to go on with the debate, and then the hon and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) moved its adjournment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not treated the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and the people of Ireland well in the course he had taken in reference to this question. What the Irish Members asked was that a measure which had been adopted in England should be extended to their own country. To shovel such a demand as was made out of the House by a peremptory vote of this kind was both unjust and impolitic. He should therefore vote for the adjournment in order to secure a full discussion of the subject.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware of the unprecedented circumstance which had occurred on the previous day, when his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite by giving them an opportunity for going to a division on this Bill. It was important that good faith should be kept; yet no division was taken, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to-night moved the resumption of the debate.
  MR. BUTTpositively denied that he had done so.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsupposed that his eyes must have been deceived when he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman take off his hat. Instead of desiring to crush the discussion, the Government had merely been acceding to the wishes of Irish Members that this matter should be brought to an issue at once. If hon. Members used the Forms of the House to obstruct the progress of Business, they would do so at the risk of the reputation they enjoyed in the House and in the country, even though their tactics were approved by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. In conclusion, he might state there certainly had

  631
  been no attempt this Session to stifle any Irish question which had been brought forward.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had understood that if he had proposed to adjourn the debate till Thursday the Bill would have been opposed, and exactly the same course would have been taken as had been adopted on the present occasion. Believing that if he himself moved the adjournment, he should be deprived of the opportunity of speaking on the Bill, he asked his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Nolan) to move the adjournment in his stead. The present debate had been forced on from the other side. He had no indirect object in view. The occupiers in Ireland could only gain the franchise by claiming to be rated, and paying the rates the same as in England before the recent alteration. It was not fair to press this Bill on in the absence of any Irish Members who had left, under the impression that it would not be taken that night. He believed that if the Prime Minister had been in his place the debate would have been adjourned an hour ago.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the debate ought to be adjourned, and that it was unprecedented to pursue such a course as that proposed by the Government, especially in the absence of many hon. Members who had left for Ireland. He did not think from the number of Orders which preceded it on the Paper that any one could fairly have expected that the Bill would be reached that night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had evidently been, through fault or through accident, misunderstandings on the subject. If the Motion for the Adjournment of the House were withdrawn, he hoped the next Business on the Paper would be proceeded with.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

  PARLIAMENTARY SEATS (PEERS OF IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to enable Peers of Ireland, not being Lords of Parliament, to be elected and returned and to sit in the House of Commons for Irish Counties, Cities, Towns, and Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. BRYAN, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SURGEON, CLERK, &c. SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the Law respecting the Superannuation Allowances of certain officers of the staff of the Metropolitan Police, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

  COUNTY CORONERS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY COLE, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to the Election of County Coroners in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY COLE and Mr. EDWARD JENKINS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.]

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (FEN CHAPELS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Bill for transferring to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England certain Estates now vested in the Pen Chapel Trustees, and to make the Acts relating to the said Commissioners applicable thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, and Mr. MALCOLM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 173.]

  PHARMACY BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Bill to institute a Pharmaceutical Society, and to regulate the qualifications of Pharmaceutical Chemists in Ireland, and to establish certain relations between the Pharmaceutical Societies of Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 175.]

  GLEBE LOAN (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICHS-BEACH, Bill to amend "The Glebe Loan (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 176.]

  JUSTICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Justices of the Police District of Dublin Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Thursday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Offences against the Person* (102); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (104).
Second Reading—Pollution of Rivers (81); Peace Preservation (Ireland) * (100).
Third Reading—Agricultural Holdings (England) * (98); Regimental Exchanges * (44); Sea Fisheries * (86); Explosive Substances * (101), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£15,000,000) [38 Vict. c. 10]; Glebe Lands (Ireland) [38 Vict. c. 11]; International Copyright [38 Viet. c. 12]; Bank Holidays Act (1871) Extension and Amendment [38 Vict. c. 13]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Caister, &c.) [38 Vict. c. vii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighton) [38 Viet. c. viii]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation [38 Vict. c. x]; Tier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [38 Vict. c. xi]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation [38 Vict. c. ix]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) [38 Vict. c. xii].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that when he gave Notice of his intention to move that evening the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess, he was not aware that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill would come before their Lordships' House so soon as it had done. Their Lordships were aware of the necessity that the Bill should pass into a law as rapidly as possible, and therefore if their Lordships should that night assent to the second reading—as he anticipated they would—he would then ask their Lordships to take the Committee and the third reading to-morrow, so that the Bill might go throught he remaining stages before the Recess. Many noble Lords, however, had made arrangements on the supposition that the Adjournment would take place that night, and therefore it might be inconvenient for their Lordships to meet at 5 P.M. This being so, he would, if it should meet with the wishes of the House, move the Adjournment until 2 o'clock to-morrow, instead of the usual hour of 5 o'clock.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, his noble Friend Lord Granville, who was unable to be in his place that evening,
  544
  had asked him to say that he thought the arrangement suggested by the noble Duke was a desirable one under the circumstances.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.—(No. 81.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.—(No. 81.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that, as that measure was of very considerable importance, he ventured to think it deserved to receive careful consideration before it became the law of the land. The time had passed when the necessity for legislation on this subject was disputed; but the subject was one of great complexity and great difficulty, and the Bill before their Lordships would affect a very largo number of manufactories, and consequently very large manufacturing and commercial interests. Therefore, although he did not underrate the importance of improving the state of our rivers, yet their Lordships must not lose sight of the fact that any legislation would affect most materially a vast amount of industry. The Bill had been only a very short time before the country. It had only been distributed to their Lordships on Saturday last. He did not ask for a postponement of the second reading; but he would suggest that those who would be so much affected by the enactments of the Bill, should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions before the Committee was taken. This Bill differed very much from other Bills that had been laid before Parliament. In the Bill of 1873 no fewer than 10 different tests were set out, and that Bill would have enacted that no liquid which did not satisfy those tests should be allowed to flow into any river. The noble Marquess who had charge of the charge of the Bill now before their Lord-ships (the Marquess of Salisbury) had shown by experiments made at Hatfield one rainy day last year, that those tests were too delicate and too unwieldy to be embodied in a Bill. This Bill went to the other extreme, and proposed to deal with the question in an heroic fashion. It dispensed altogether with chemical tests, and made the common sense of the

  545
  County Court Judge the only test as to what was "filthy, noxious, or polluting." He spoke with all respect of the County Court Judges, but, originally, they were legal functionaries appointed to preside over Courts for the recovery of small debts. No doubt they had a fair share of common sense; but common sense was not such a common commodity as it was generally supposed to be. Practically, this Bill would give the County Court Judges control over manufacturing interests of the greatest importance; and, without any definition in the Bill to guide them, manufacturers might be put to a very large outlay by order of a County Court Judge. He ventured to think there would be a great deal of difference in the rulings of County Court Judges as to what would constitute an offence under the Bill, and he would point out that there was no appeal from his decision. Indeed, he would go further, and say that even in their Lordships' House there would be found various opinions as to what was pollution to a stream. In the Report of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Morton it was said—
  "It is of the first importance, in carrying out any legislative enactment in connection with river pollution, that all river basins he uniformly dealt with. This has again and again been urged upon us by representatives of the staple manufacturers on the Mersey and Ribble basins. They state, and we think with reason, that it would he unfair, for example, to the calico printers of Lancashire to have a law stringently enforced against them, while in another river basin their competitors in trade were being treated with comparative leniency and indulgence."
  In their evidence before the Committee of their Lordships' House scientific witnesses showed that they were not agreed on the point. Manufacturers did not know how to act; and if the County Court Judge called in the aid of experts their Lordships knew how conflicting were likely to be the opinions he would hear stated. He did not mean to assert that scientific witnesses were unduly biased on the side for which they appeared; but all of their Lordships who had served on Committees knew that the evidence of such witnesses when examined on the one side and the other, was usually to leave the Committee in the position in which it stood when the inquiry commenced, and to put out of its power any attempt to reconcile the conflicting scientific opinions. The Report
  546
  of the Committee of their Lordships' House stated—
  "Two sets of experts usually come to opposite conclusions, and, instead of helping the tribunal before whom they appear to form a sound judgment, they only increase its embarrassment, and the general result is either that the Court, rejecting altogether the conflicting scientific evidence, arrives at what it considers a common-sense conclusion, or by some ingenious and fallacious process contrives to twist the discordant statements sufficiently into harmony to afford some justification for conclusions thus apparently based upon them."
  He had said so much, not by way of opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but to point out the necessity of giving full time for a consideration of the Bill and an examination of the proposal to leave so much to the County Court Judge.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that the object of the Bill was a very good one, but he could not conceal from himself that there would be very great difficulty in carrying it into effect. He had great experience with respect to the pollution of the rivers in Scotland, but he thought it would be very objectionable, if, merely because the manufacturers had been in the habit of polluting the rivers for upwards of 12 years, they should obtain the prescriptive right to continue to do so, merely by showing that they had taken some steps to prevent such pollution, and that these were the best means which they could adopt for the purpose. In Scotland it had been ruled that however long a person had possessed a manufactory, and had polluted the river, it gave him no prescriptive right to continue to do so. He did not think that the provisions of the measure generally were stringent enough, because there was no one appointed to put the law in motion. He thought it would be better if they appointed Inspectors—something in the character of Inspectors of Nuisances—who should examine the water, and on finding it polluted have the power of bringing the manufacturer before the County Court Judge—in other words, who should fulfil the office of public prosecutor. The rivers in Scotland were polluted to an enormous extent, and for a considerable distance from many towns the water of the rivers was altogether unfit for domestic purposes. In some parts of the Tweed it appeared bright and sparkling enough, and emitted no-

  547
  thing whatever offensive to the smell, but nevertheless, when taken up, it was found to be as black as any of their Lordships' coats. Such a state of things ought never to be continued, and he was therefore desirous that the Bill should be amended in the sense of making it more stringent.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEunderstood that the main objection to the state of the law as it now stood was its uncertainty, and the indefiniteness of the offence it was intended to punish. He would like to consider the provisions of the Bill from that point of view, because he thought that if they could pass an Act making clear what constituted the offence, that Act would be accepted by manufacturers and by the corporations of towns with great readiness; but if it failed in that point, it would encounter great resistance. Now, the Bill of Her Majesty's Government differed in several respects from any previous attempts in this direction. There was, in the first place, the constitution of the County Court Judge as the tribunal before whom these cases were to be tried. With regard to this point, his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) had well pointed out the dangers which were likely to arise from leaving so much to the judgment of the County Court Judge. Then there was the substitution of the noble Marquess' common-sense test for the chemical tests upon which previous legislation had relied. He was bound to say that, whilst something was to be said against the chemical tests, a good deal was also to be said against anything which could be put in their place. It was quite true that chemical tests, if embodied in a Bill, would be likely to break down in some cases; but scientific men were almost unanimously of opinion that some kind of test should be adopted, and it was the opinion of almost all the men of science whose opinions had been laid before the River Pollution Commission that tests were practicable. Professor Frankland stated before the House of Lords' Committee that—
  "There is actually no definite line of demarcation separating the purest spring water from the filthiest sewage; it, therefore, appears obvious that for the purposes of efficient legislation such a line, though an arbitrary one, must be drawn between waters which were to be deemed polluting and inadmissible into streams,
  548
  and such as should be considered innocuous, and therefore admissible into running water; it would thus become easy on the one hand to convict careless or reckless corporations or manufacturers, and on the other, which is equally important, to protect them from the incessant and uncertain litigation that must ensue if no definition of polluting liquids were adopted; hence arose the necessity for the standards of pollution suggested by the Commissioners: the standards of pollution represent, in a concentrated form, the experience of the present Rivers Pollution Commission, acquired by the incessant investigation for five years of the chief manufacturing purposes carried on in this country."
  He had read a very important statement to the same effect by Mr. J. Chalmers Morton—
  "Without tests it was impossible that justice should invariably be done, for these standards were as necessary for the protection of the innocent as for the easy conviction of the guilty. At present, if you go before a Court with your complaint in general terms of the nuisance by which you are aggrieved you are certain to be met by evidence, also in general terms, that the thing is not so bad as you declared it, or that there is really no nuisance at all; or that if there be any discomfort it is as nothing compared with the tenfold injury which would be inflicted on one hundredfold the number of sufferers if any injunction should be issued; and what was a distracted jury, or even a clear-sighted Judge, to do for either complainant or defendant in the face of contradictory evidence, both lay and scientific, so long as both are allowed the resources of the English language with which to attack or defend?"
  He could not but regard that testimony as of great importance. As showing the difficulties which would have to be encountered in the working of the Bill, he would direct attention to the 3rd clause, which stated that—
  "Every person who causes to fall or flow, or knowingly permits to fall or flow or to be carried into any stream any solid or liquid sewage matter, shall be deemed to commit an offence against this Act."
  Now, it would be impossible for the manager of a sewage farm—and this Bill appeared to contemplate sewage farms as the obvious remedy for the existing condition of things—to avoid doing what that clause prohibited. Again, by Clauses 4 and 5 anyone who, after the passing of this Bill, should knowingly cause or permit to fall or flow any filthy, noxious, poisonous, or polluting liquid proceeding from any factory or manufacturing process, or from any mine, into any stream should be deemed to commit an offence against the Act. A person who had been acting in that way for a period of less than 12 years preceding the passing of the Act was to be allowed two years

  549
  after the passing of the Act, or such further period as the Local Government Board might allow, before he could be deemed to have committed such offence, and then he was to be subject to all the pains and penalties of the Bill; but a person who for a period of 12 years or more preceding the passing of the Act had been acting in that way was not at any time to be deemed to commit an offence against the Act, if he proved that he had used, and continued to use, the best practicable and available means to detain or render harmless the pollution. Now, if a man had taken and was continuing to take the best practicable and available means of purifying the offensive liquid, he could not see what difference two, five, ten, or twelve years' usage should make in the case. The proposal in the Bill appeared to him to be "prescription run mad," and he ventured to hope that the noble Marquess would reconsider his proposal, at all events in this respect. He had heard with great satisfaction from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the drainage of a district was not to be a matter for the local authorities; but unless the local authority took action under the provisions of the Bill, he should like to know who else was likely to do so? In fact, what it would come to was this—that the duty of giving effect to this Bill would fall upon the medical officer of each district. The duties of the County Court Judge had been multiplied by recent legislation, but the case of the County Court Judge was nothing to that of the sanitary officer, upon whom every fresh Act of Parliament cast new responsibilities. As their Lordships knew, that officer was in many instances the doctor in a small country town. Often he was not very liberally paid for what he did as Officer of Health, and in many instances—as shown by a Return which he held in his hand—he was allowed private practice; and therefore did not give his whole time to the duties of his office. He could draw only one conclusion from the difficulties which presented themselves, and it was this—that in order to successfully grapple with the subject, a wider and more comprehensive scheme of local government must necessarily be established, and he regretted that before bringing in this measure the Government had not addressed themselves to
  550
  reforming the local government of the country.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he was aware that the subject with which the Government proposed to deal by this Bill was a most difficult one, but he thought the Bill failed to meet it. He concurred with his noble Friend who had just spoken (the Marquess of Lansdowne) in thinking there was no good reason for the prescriptive advantage proposed to be given to those manufacturers who had been polluting rivers for 12 years. He was of opinion that the pollution of rivers could not be effectively dealt with unless in other great manufacturing towns the course taken in the metropolis were adopted. He referred to the construction of a great central sewer to carry off the drainage of a large district to one appointed place. He could hardly think that the point had escaped the noble Marquess; but he did not observe that sufficient provision for the purpose was made in the Bill. He concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) who had pointed out the embarrassment likely to arise from conflicting decisions of County Court Judges; and it appeared to him that competent persons to supervise districts should be appointed by the Government in order to secure uniformity in the working of the measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not object to the criticisms on the Bill, nor was he at all surprised at them; but he would ask their Lordships to consider what they had to do—what was the problem they had to solve. On the one side, the rivers had been so absolutely polluted that the rights of the riparian owners had been virtually ousted and destroyed. The owners lower down a stream had had from all time the right to use the water for themselves and their animals—the right to have it in a state in which it could be used. Consequently, they had the right that it should not be made noxious by those who dwelt higher up. On the other hand, the owners of great pecuniary interests—extensive manufacturers employing large numbers of people and carrying on manufactories essential to the prosperity of the country—had set up their works all along those streams. These were vast interests which neither our sense of justice nor our Parliamentary power would enable us to disregard.

  551
  But that was not the only difficulty. It was to be borne in mind that Parliament took a bold step some years ago in the matter of drainage. Without inquiring too curiously what would be the effect to individual interests, it directed that the work should be done—they imposed on the local authorities the duty of draining towns and other places inhabited by large communities. The Government therefore had to deal with very complicated local governments and with people jealous of their rights and interests. What was to be done in this dilemma was a matter which could only be settled by arrangement. Undoubtedly there were difficulties which must be encountered by those who undertook to legislate on the subject of the Pollution of Rivers—they were difficulties inseparable from the constitution of the country. He could not concur with those noble Lords who had said that they saw no reason for the distinction which the Bill made between persons who had been polluting a stream for 12 years and those who had commenced to do so within a more recent period. If a man came to establish himself on the land of another person, he was a wrong doer, and that other person could at once drive him out; but if the man had been 12 years established on the land, that other person could not drive him out. He knew there was no legal parallel between that case and the case provided for in the Bill, but there was a moral parallel between them. He thought that if manufacturers had been allowed to go on pursuing a certain process for many years, and Parliament suddenly interfered to solve a problem, that solution ought to be sought for with some consideration for those manufacturers. As to what had been said about the local authorities being left to set the Bill in motion, he thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had not a clear apprehension of the proposal—he seemed to think that only the local authorities had power to set the Act in motion. No doubt had that been so it would have been a defect in the Bill; but he would point out that the Local Government Board was charged with the performance of the duty in case the local authorities had failed to perform it; so that a responsible Minister of the Government would have to see that effect was given to the provisions of the Bill. He quite
  552
  agreed with what the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) had said as to the importance of bringing the Bill to bear on a large area; and that, he apprehended, was the object of providing for Conservancy Boards in the way proposed by the Bill. There was, however, one point in respect of which he admitted the Bill was defective. As the Bill stood it did not confer sufficient power on Conservancy Boards to construct large drains in the centres of districts. He thought they could do this only by means of Private Bills, and when this Bill went down to the Commons it might be expedient to provide means for the Conservancy Boards to promote Private Bills for that purpose. As to the objections urged against the jurisdiction proposed to be given to the County Court Judges, in the first place, the Judges of the Superior Courts were already overworked. The County Court Judge was at once the Judge nearest to the locality and the Judge with the most time. To say that questions such as would arise under this Bill must be dealt with by Courts of great authority and not by the County Courts was to say that they must be brought to London—a proceeding which would be ruinous to the suitor and ruinous to the Bill itself. As to tests, if satisfactory tests could be embodied in the Bill, that, no doubt, would be a convenient and satisfactory arrangement; but he did not think they could be. The test of colour would be erroneous; the test of suspended matter would be futile, because it would always be found in an agricultural district after a heavy fall of rain; and as to the test of organic nitrogen, while there was still a dispute about it on a matter of scientific fact it would be going rather far to embody it in the Bill. But he did not think there would be that difficulty in coming to a decision which some noble Lords seemed to apprehend. They were only now dealing with the pollution of water; but it was a long time back since they commenced to deal with the pollution of air, and people who had noses had proved to be well able, by the old and well-known process, to decide what was a stink. In the same way he believed the County Court Judge would be able to decide, by common sense, what was the pollution of a river. It was for the persons who were affected by the pollution to say whether the water was pure or not, and

  553
  for the Court to decide and say what was to be done. We should not be able to do altogether without experts, but he hoped we should have as little as possible to do with them. Their opinions were weakened by the very accuracy and minuteness of their scientific knowledge. He did not pretend that a perfect remedy would be provided by this Bill. It was a tentative effort. He believed the Government were going as far as they could go in the matter, and that the Bill would effect a marked improvement in respect of the many evils complained of. If that improvement should prove not to be sufficient, it would be competent to Parliament, by means of future legislation, to again take the grievance in hand and have recourse to further means to remove it. It was, in his judgment, the wiser course for the Government to move by slow steps, and not attempt to go too far.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the discussion their Lordships had heard that evening showed the truth of the observations of his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley), that this was a Bill which ought not to be passed before time had been given to the great interests which it would affect to carefully consider its provisions. He had himself great difficulty in understanding what would be the operation of the Bill, and that difficulty had not been diminished—on the contrary, it had been increased—by the speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Marquess did not appear to understand, as well as he might have been expected to do, some parts of his own Bill; because he first argued that prescriptive rights were not given to certain persons by Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, and then he went on to say that, of course, it was necessary to show some respect for vested interests. The real difficulty which presented itself in connection with the words of those clauses was to say whether they did save any interests; and if they did, whether they did not save a great deal more than his noble Friend intended them to save. In the first place, even the person who had caused pollution for 12 years or more was required to show that he had used, and continued to use, the best procurable and available means to "detain or render harmless" the polluting liquid, so that it should
  554
  not flow into the stream. If these words were to be read as requiring him to "detain" by the best available means, unless there were some available means of rendering the liquid harmless, this was not a matter of science; everybody could detain a liquid, in the sense of not letting it run into a stream. But, in that case, there was no greater tenderness shown to those who had polluted for 12 years, than to those who might only have began their pollution yesterday. The distinction was illusory; and every man who could not purify the liquid must detain it, though at the expense, possibly, of the destruction of his business. On the other hand, if a man who had for 12 years polluted a stream, was meant to be at liberty to go on doing so, if he could show that there were no better means available than those which he was actually using, either to purify or to detain it, consistently with carrying on his business, this would operate in a direction exactly the contrary of that desired by the noble Duke opposite. He (Lord Selborne) did not see how it would be possible to get rid of scientific tests and the evidence of experts when the question was whether the best and most practical means had been used to render the sewage harmless. The hearing of such cases in the County Courts would be very likely to cause a serious derangement of their business, for some pollution cases in which he had been engaged had lasted many days, and even weeks. There seemed to be undue latitude in the definition of "streams"—for if any watercourse was to be deemed a stream within the meaning of the Act, it would go much further than could be intended, and in particular it would interfere with mining operations, which could not be carried on without using watercourses. Under any circumstances it was necessary that time should be allowed for the consideration of all these details throughout the country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the criticism of the noble and learned Lord related to the merest points of detail. What was meant by "detain or render harmless" was, of course, that one or two alternatives must be adopted—namely, either polluting matter must be kept out of a stream, or it must be rendered harmless before it was put in. If the definition of "stream" included

  555
  an "artificial watercourse," that could be remedied in Committee. His noble and learned Friend, also, had spoken of the 4th and 5th clauses, as "Saving clauses" as though they had created vested interests; but he, (the Lord Chancellor), contended that anyone could argue on vested interests by having polluted a stream for 12 years, and he denied that the Bill set up any such prescription. At present an offender enjoyed immunity, because individuals had either not the money or the direct personal interest to resort to litigation; but that was the only kind of immunity which the Bill recognized; but this Bill provided a cheap and speedy process of law and enabled persons interested to stop a nuisance at once. As the main object of the Bill was to invest an authority with power to restrain the pollution of rivers, we must in this as in other cases face the difficulty of selecting a tribunal. Doubtless there had been cases in which great expense had been incurred in raising questions which experts could do little more than quarrel about; but if the power conferred by the Bill was to be denied to subordinate Courts like the County Courts, and was to be given only to Judges of the Superior Courts, the practical effect would be that the Bill could not be put into operation on account of the difficulty and expense. There would be a large number of small cases which would be much better disposed of on the spot, on a view of the place by the County Court Judge, than they would be on affidavits supported by argument before a Superior Court in London. Their Lordships might very well consider whether in all cases the decision of the County Court Judge was to be final; but it would be premature to discuss that now. No doubt the Bill had been a short time before the public, but the discussion on the second reading in that House would call public attention to it.
  LORD SELBORNEwished to say, in explanation, that he did not mean to affirm that any man could have a vested interest in the commission of a public nuisance. What he said was, that the Bill, as it stood, either created such vested interests, or that, if it did not do so and was not intended to do so, its terms were illusory.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the noble Marquess had stated that there
  556
  were various ways in which water might be purified, or pollution prevented. So, no doubt, there were. They had had long discussions in that House about patents, of which there were 45,000 in this country. The moment the Act came in force the holders of some of these patents would step in, each claiming that he owned a patent for the only means by which pollution could be prevented, and in that way the work of purification would be a heavy tax on every manufacturer. Another result of its operation would be, that a manufacturer who could easily avoid pollution—say by possessing a site suitable for a subsidence pond—would get the Act enforced against a rival in trade who, for want of adjoining land, could not solve the difficulty so easily. No doubt, there would be many cases of this kind. It was 10 years since the first Commission on this subject was appointed, and the conclusion at which he had arrived, after reading much of the evidence, was that our rivers were hopelessly polluted, and that we never could make their water potable. The foul matters encumbering streams might be got rid of, but the notion of their supplying water fit to drink must be altogether put aside. Towns must be supplied with pure water for drinking purposes in some other way, and the sooner that was generally admitted the better it would be for their large towns.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 3rd of June next.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 98.)
(The Lord President).
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 98.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord President.)
  The Queen's consent, and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall signified.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have tried more than once to address you on this Bill, but would not persist to the inconvenience of your Lordships.

  557
  Now, however, before it leaves this House I must entreat your indulgence for a few minutes, and a very few minutes only. I have been for some time of opinion, and have publicly said so during the last 12 months at several Agricultural Chamber and Farmers' Club meetings, that some legislation on the subject was desirable; in order, while maintaining freedom of contract, to alter the legal presumption all over England to what it is in those parts, where an enlightened custom of the country has gradually obtained recognition in the Law Courts. I therefore think the Government was right in bringing forward a measure on the subject. But though this Bill has been much improved in its passage through this House, I still object altogether to its plan; I object to much of its wording; and I object to some of the grounds alleged by the noble Duke, its author, for its introduction. I object to the plan of the Bill because it begins by laying down a general principle in the most sweeping terms in one clause, while materially restricting its legal operation by subsequent clauses. I can conceive nothing more unwise or impolitic in the case of a question which has excited a great deal of popular feeling, and where a certain number of just and reasonable demands are mixed up with other unjust and unreasonable ones, than first to make an apparent surrender of almost everything with the one hand, while afterwards quietly taking back the greater part with the other hand. Such a plan of legislation hero I think most undesirable, not to say dangerous, from the landlords' point of view. Now, from the tenants' point of view, I think that, after you have limited, as I believe rightly, the tenant's compensation for any improvement to a sum not exceeding at most what he has expended upon it, it is most unjust to the tenant that you should further limit his claim for compensation to the case where the improvement has been successful; however honestly the work may have been carried out in accordance with the notice and description given of it to the landlord, and however complete may have been the landlord's consent and approval. Indeed, I felt this injustice so strongly that I had intended moving an Amendment about it; and was only deterred by the hopelessness of carrying it, and by
  558
  observing that the point had been noticed by others in the course of the discussion. Then in the interest of both landlords and tenants, I object to the general scheme of the Bill; so great a part of which is taken up with elaborate provisions about valuations and arbitrations, that its whole working seems to turn upon them. I therefore confidently anticipate that it will prove far less profitable to either land-occupiers or landowners than to surveyors and solicitors. Now with regard to these two highly respectable and useful professions, it should be remembered that their work is classed by political economists under the head of verificatory processes as distinguished from those of production or distribution: and that when the work of verification is artificially stimulated and increased by special legislation, an undue proportion of the wealth of the country will be un-profitably diverted into this channel; and either the cost of production thus needlessly enhanced, or its profits needlessly diminished. I object, therefore, to the expensive and complicated machinery of the Bill. I object further to some of its wording, and especially to the term "unexhausted" improvements as applied not merely to manures, which may not unreasonably be described as exhausted by one or at most a few crops; but also to buildings and bridges, to wells and watercourses, to roads and orchards; as if the buildings and bridges must fall down, the wells and water-courses choke up, the roads be stopped up, or the apple trees be blown down in the course of 20 years at most. The legal operation of this expression is indeed limited by other clauses; but the word itself is most unfortunate and misleading, and must tend to create grievous discontent with the measure. Lastly I object to one of the grounds prominently assigned by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) for the introduction of the Bill—namely, increasing the production of food for the people. Time was, indeed, when that reason would have had just weight, in the days of the absurd sliding scale of the old Corn Laws, which we Liberals always denounced and the noble Duke so strenuously defended. For Protection did seriously restrict the supply of food to the people. But since its happy abolition immense quantities of food have been annually imported from abroad. And there is no

  559
  argument of the noble Duke's about corn which does not apply more strongly to coal. Coal is even more essential to our manufacturing and commercial prosperity; for fuel means force. Coal is some 20 times as heavy in proportion to its value as corn, and therefore cannot near as easily be supplied from abroad. Coal is not reproduced, and therefore our coalfields are in slow course of exhaustion; unlike our cornfields, which under skilful cultivation can go on yielding corn for an indefinite period. Lastly, there is no extravagant waste or folly known in the production of corn, which has not been, and is not, ten times surpassed in the getting and using of coal. But the real fact is, that when a Tory Government determines under popular pressure to legislate in a popular sense, it is very apt, as we have seen before, to take a leap in the dark; to use clap-trap arguments and announce sweeping principles, quite unconscious of the inferences and consequences logically deducible from the premisses, which it has so rashly laid down.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  LORD PENZANCEmoved to add at end of Clause 4 (Interpretation) the following definition of "letting value:"—
  "The letting value means the value at which the holding could he or could have been let if the improvement had not been executed."
  Motion agreed to; Words added.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was anxious at this stage of the Bill to give the House an opportunity of re-considering this one question—namely, what was the most proper measure of the value of the compensation to be awarded under this Bill. They had been told that the improvement should add to "the letting value" was a condition vital to the Bill. He confessed he did not understand that way of putting the matter. He was perfectly ready to agree that the improvement for which compensation was to be claimed should be such as would add to the value of the holding. But it was a practical question how the value and the improvement for which compensation was to be given under the Bill could best be measured. He ventured to doubt whether the measure adopted by the Bill was the best
  560
  from a practical point of view, and whether it was likely to be understood by persons hitherto employed in determining questions of this kind. He was not aware that those gentlemen had ever heard of the condition of "increased letting value." He had carefully looked into the provisions of the Bill brought into the other House by the late Mr. Pusey, and also into the evidence taken by the Committee over which Mr. Pusey presided, and he had not been able to discover the phrase "increased letting value." Many of the improvements to be executed under this Bill would not add to the letting value. It was the large improvements which would have an obvious and palpable effect on the rent of the farm, and which could be proved in a Court of Justice by the valuer or the tenant when he made the claim. But would that remark apply to the minor improvements under this Act—which would be far more numerous? It would be very difficult in those numerous cases of minor improvements, however valuable the improvements might be to the occupiers, for the tenant to give evidence to the satisfaction of a valuer or a Judge that they would necessarily add to the letting value of the farm at the moment as measured by the increased rent that would be obtained. He doubted further whether this condition was consistent with the other provisions of the Bill. In conclusion, he begged to move, in Clause 5, line 23, to leave out ("adding to the letting value thereof,") and insert (" the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of his quitting his holding.")
  VISCOUNT PORTMANsaid, he had not interfered in the discussion of the Bill, because he had felt it did not apply, except in cases of the disability of the owner of land to give security to the occupier against the pressure of the successor to the estate; in fact, he had felt the force of "suave mari magno &c." principle; but now he yielded to the wish expressed to him to address the House. He had, in years long past, been in the habit, as a member of the Royal Agricultural Society, of visiting all parts of England, and holding intimate and friendly intercourse with farmers of all grades in all parts of the country, and he found that a real grievance existed, and was felt by them to need a remedy. He brought in a Bill in 1841 and again

  561
  in 1843, which was supported by the present Lord Privy Seal, with some few other Peers yet alive, and was referred to a Select Committee, where it was amended and left for the country to consider. It was a Bill to give power to persons under disability to grant leases, and to make agreements for specified improvements on a fixed value, to be exhausted by yearly enjoyment, or to be paid for as the term of enjoyment was or was not completed. This House afterwards preferred to allow the subject to be considered in the House of Commons before taking any further step. Mr. Pusey, after conference with him (Viscount Portman), undertook the work, and although his Bill passed the House of Commons, it did not find acceptance in this House. Parts of it only were enacted in the Act called "the Emblement Act," wherein was a clause giving the tenant a remedy against the landlord, for the value of buildings he might have erected. The subject then dropped; because a system of loan was established which owners under disability were able to obtain a charge on their land to be payable by instalments by themselves and their heirs, really much better for all parties than expenditure of the money of the tenant; but in these more recent times an agitation of a larger kind had been created, and under its pressure it seemed that the Ministers of the Crown had decided to propose this Bill. In his (Viscount Port-man's) opinion the great body of the occupiers of the land were indifferent to the subject, except so far as regarded the giving power to bind the successors of owners under disability. The chief agitators were the implement makers, the manure merchants, the lenders of money, and the borrowers of money. All those men wanted to get the security of the land for their money, and as soon as that was obtained, then to press on to abolish the law of distress for rent. There were, however, to be added some good farmers, who intended to quit their farms, who, in their last two years, by the aid of stimulants, could secure the utmost crop, and by the use of cake could improve the condition of the sheep and cattle to be sold off, and in addition to the gain from the artificial manure wished to get all they could persuade valuers to give them to add to their gain, rather than to secure themselves against
  562
  loss, for if they were so to be paid the probable loss would fall on the incoming tenant. Again, some farmers of capital desired to spend their money to avoid the payment of interest on money borrowed by the landlord, whereby such men could obtain double interest on their money by saving payment and by reaping the increased profit on the outlay. Improvement of a farm was made by continuous and steadily-continued good farming for a series of years, not by any sudden process; and although in some parts of the country larger crops might be obtained than could be grown by bad farmers, yet to talk of double crops was absurd, unless it was where none were grown, and all that was obtained thereon was of course double. Too much stimulant did not augment the profit of grain crops, but often lessened it, for it caused a mass of weak straw to grow, which fell as the grain became heavy, and the crop was often not worth half what it would have been with "good" farming as contrasted with what was called "high" farming. The tenant ought to have some advantage in his future lease for his improvements of the farm. His view had always been that increase of rent depended on extraneous causes to which the landlord had a fair claim, on the improvements made and paid for by the landlord, and on the improvements made by the tenant which should be allowed to him in the new rent. He had always been of opinion that the relations of landlord and tenant should be governed by contract—either by agreement or lease or other written contract—and he had let all his estates on written contracts for various terms of years, so he might say he was quite impartial as to the clauses of the Bill. He thought the great advantage of this measure was, that it would induce the generality of landlords and tenants to make agreements and define their engagements strictly. The words which Mr. Pusey deemed the best adapted for the purpose they were now discussing were—"The actual value of the improvement remaining after the termination of the tenancy," by which words he meant what remained to be paid of the sums previously fixed by agreement, in all cases, a necessary preliminary. His noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) proposed to use the word "benefit;" but

  563
  he (Viscount Portman) preferred the present wording of the Bill. The Government had taken the right words, and had guarded them properly by the definition of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance). In his opinion, if the present Amendment were agreed to, a great injury would be inflicted on the Bill and on the people of this country. Benefit implied an opinion formed by the valuer, while letting value meant rent which would be a fact established. To the three classes of improvement the words "letting value" were not equally applicable. To the first and second classes it was the best test; to the third class it was less applicable, because the so-called improvement was fugitive. It was, in fact, merely the use of stimulants to obtain a crop, and often was exhausted in one crop, or, in case of a dry season, was useless for any future crop. It was, in fact, the mode wherein a farmer was able to exhaust to the utmost the productive power of the soil, and yet it was capable of estimate in the increased letting value, by helping to maintain the land in a productive state, so that the rent was augmented by the continuous good farming of the occupier continued to the end of his term. He regarded this measure as one of very great value in one way. It would lead landlords to consider that Parliament thought it right that they should make their agreements in a particular direction, and it provided a remedy when the owner of the land was under disability to bind his successor. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would firmly adhere to this being a permissive and not a compulsory measure, and that they would take care to maintain the great principle of freedom of contract, which was the best for the landlords, the tenants, and the labourers who would derive benefit from their legislation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the most convenient way of estimating the value of an improvement was practically that which had been proposed by his noble Friend behind him. He wished to point out that while this clause professed to give to the tenant a capital sum, representing the unexhausted value of his improvement, as calculated by the increased letting value, that sum was, under Clause 7, subject to a proportionate deduction for each year of the tenancy, whatever might be the increased
  564
  letting value. This was sure to excite a letting of injustice, as the two principles of valuation conflicted.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEpreferred the words in the clause, which he thought were clearer than the proposed Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Carlingford) had failed to convince him that it ought to be accepted by their Lordships. The definition given by the Bill of an improvement was "an improvement which adds to the letting value." The Bill declared that compensation should be given for that which added to the letting value, and one of the clauses set out in detail the manner in which that compensation was to be determined. The noble Lord said that valuers generally throughout the country would be employed—and he had no doubt they would be—on such occasions, but that they would not be competent to deal with the letting value of a farm. He could not conceive any body of men who would be more competent than men whose whole lives were passed in valuing property.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  On Question that the Bill do pass,
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, as we have now arrived at the conclusion of our labours on this Bill, I trust the House will allow me to say a very few words on its general effect before it passes to the other House of Parliament. I am not sure that I recollect in my experience any similar case of a measure so important, so novel in principle, affecting such important interests, and having such extensive alterations made in it, and which, notwithstanding, has passed through all its stages without giving rise to a single division. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will admit that we on this side of the House, while we have discussed it fairly, have shown no inclination to damage the Bill—and, on the other hand, we on this side quite admit that in conducting this Bill through the House my noble Friend opposite has shown that he was quite willing to receive suggestions from this side of the House made to improve its provisions. As the Bill now stands, though we may entertain different opi-

  565
  nions—and I entertain my own upon it—it will leave this House with the general assent and consent of your Lordships. I think, my Lords, this measure will have considerable effect upon the relations between landlord and tenants in England, and I will explain in a very few words what I think the effect will be. What is the state of things now, and what is it that it is supposed to require redress? I do not know that I can better illustrate the case than by telling the House a story that was told to me not many years ago by a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. I need not mention his name. My noble Friend told me that he had in a distant county in England an outlying estate, held by a very substantial tenant. It happened that he had never seen his property for some 12 or 15 years. On one occasion, however, he was hunting in the county, and visited a friend in the neighbourhood of this farm. Riding over to see it, he came to the place at which he imagined it to be. He looked round about him, and saw a large and substantial farm-house, which he had never seen before, and a very handsome windmill. He came to the conclusion that he must have gone to the wrong place, and that neither the farm-house nor the windmill could be upon his property. He therefore asked a labourer whom he saw where such and such a farm was; whereupon the labourer said—"There it is, straight before you." My noble Friend found that his tenant had actually, without his knowledge or sanction, laid out a very large sum of money, not only upon the farm, but upon the farm-buildings. On asking whether there was any custom under which a tenant might have done so, he was told certainly not, but he was simply holding the land at will under the ordinary law of England, at six months' notice. The story made a great impression upon my mind. No Scotchman certainly would have done such a thing without having some security for it—my noble Friend opposite knows that very well. It is a splendid illustration of the confidence between landlord and tenant in England and of the moral atmosphere which could bring about such a state of things. At the same time, if I am asked whether it is a satisfactory state of matters, I say, as the French officers said of the Bala-
  566
  clava charge—"It is magnificent, but is it not war;" so I say of this—it is magnificent, but it is not business—it is an illustration of a state of things which calls for legislation such as the present, and I cannot help coming to the conclusion that in future there will be under this Bill clear written agreements for the letting and holding of land, and will induce landlords to insert in their leases some provisions giving compensation to tenants who might be obliged to leave their farms or who had expended their capital on the improvement of their holdings without opportunity of recovering that capital by any adequate length of possession. I cannot doubt that a feeling exists among many landlords in England which will still lead to discourage the letting of land on leases. As an instance of this feeling, I may mention that not many years ago a noble Lord a Member of this House possessed an estate in Scotland contiguous to my own and had lived upon it for a great number of years. One day I happened to meet him in this House, and he said to me, "I am about to sell my Scotch estate." "What for?" I asked him. "You seemed to be very fond of it, and to enjoy it very much." "Oh," he said, "I have been persuaded by an agent to adopt that abominable system of a 19 years' lease, and since then I have ceased to feel any interest in the estate, and intend to sell it." That was a speech that let a good deal of light on my mind as to the feeling which might exist in England between landlord and tenant. The objection on the part of some landlords to granting leases shows a state of things calculated to lead to the stagnation of agricultural industry. In the present day, if farming is to be successful and under the new conditions, landlords must learn to give up somewhat of the ancient feudal power which they formerly held over their property, and the tenants must have security for money expended under the new and costly system of farming which has come to be the custom in modern times. We must give them security for their tenures or assure to them a fixed term of years; if we do not give them leases we must give them some other security, that if they let on from year to year and laying out money on the improvement of the land they shall not be turned out of their farms

  567
  without compensation. With regard to the proposal that has been made to render the measure compulsory, I can only say that if it had been adopted every English landlord would have been compelled at once to re-value his farms, for the reason that tenants cannot be compensated in two different forms—they cannot have the advantage of low rentals, as is the case with a permissive system, and, at the same time, receive compensation for improvements either at the termination of their leases or after a certain lapse of time. Although I think that, as a general rule, low rentals are connected with bad and lazy farming, I cannot avoid the conclusion that a general revaluation will have most mischievous effects. This measure cannot be made compulsory without involving a State valuation of rentals, for, without such a valuation, landlords will recoup themselves for the compensation they may be called upon to pay by an addition of £1 or £2 an acre to the rent of the land; and in that way tenants will be deprived of all the advantage the Bill is intended to confer upon them. We cannot, under a system of open competition, secure advantages to tenants unless we proceed the whole length of a State valuation; and are we to have regulation and over-regulation prices for farms? Such a state of things will not stand. So long as the Bill is permissive, it may have the effect of introducing voluntary agreements all over England; but any attempt to make it compulsory will be attended with infinite mischief. It is to the honour of the House that all parties have concurred in passing a Bill which is not an empty sham—which we have not passed because we think it will have no effect at all—but a Bill which we believe to be based on sound principles, and which will place landlords under strong and powerful motives to adopt agreements consistent with those principles. The Bill will have three great results—it will confer important powers on limited owners—which have long been enjoyed in Scotland under special Acts—it will make necessary written agreements all over the country, and it will allow compensation to go on as it does now in the form of low rents without necessitating—as a compulsory Bill would unquestionably do—
  568
  a simultaneous and universal re-valuation of farms.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the discussion on the Bill showed how everyone was disposed to look at the question from the standpoint of how it would affect himself, or how it would affect the interests of the community with which he was himself most intimately connected; and this was the case with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), for the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland were far more businesslike than they were in England. But then the diversities were so great that the customs of the South of England could scarcely be understood in Scotland. There the farms were principally carried on by men with large capital, while in England a man might have no more capital than he had borrowed. Till very lately not one among 30 or 40 tenants had a signed agreement. When he himself succeeded to his property, he did not find a single properly written agreement in existence between the tenants and his father—all they had to rely upon were memoranda of verbal promises and detached portions of letters. In the enthusiasm of youth, he wished to change all that and give leases; but he found his tenants would not accept leases. In the case of one tenant at £1,000 a-year of a farm which had been in the family for more than a century a lease was accepted; but when it lapsed nothing could induce the tenant to renew it; and he preferred a yearly tenure. Tenants insisted upon going on from year to year, and they would not have leases because they thought they were more independent without them. Now under this Bill landlords and tenants would be obliged, in their own interests, to have written agreements. If the Bill had been a compulsory measure nothing would have induced him to assist in carrying it. Nothing could be more disadvantageous to farmers than a compulsory law. It would be humiliating to them as suggesting that they could not take care of themselves, and humiliating to landlords as implying that they could not be trusted to make fair agreements with their tenants. Whatever changes might be made in the Bill in the other House, at all events he trusted no attempt would be made to tamper or trifle with the great principle of freedom of contract.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMthought he might infer from the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that discussion had changed his opinion of the Bill and had caused him to regard it with more approval than he did at first. For himself, believing it to be founded upon principles of justice between landlords and tenants, he saw no reason why-it should not come into operation. The call for compensation for unexhausted improvements was not owing to any real want of confidence in the great bulk of the landed proprietors; but, no doubt, among the smaller landowners injustice had been committed in various cases, and tenants had often grievances to complain of, that in parting with the land they had received no compensation for improvements they had made. He hoped the effect of this measure would not be the introduction of leases as in Scotland, for in this country tenants had full security for their holdings—he had tenants on his own property who had held the same farm, father and sons, for generations. But this measure would be useful to the agricultural interest by laying down the principle on which compensation should be afforded; and if it was sound in principle, he saw no reason why it should not be generally adopted. He could not allow the Bill to pass without expressing his acknowledgments to the Government for having brought forward such a measure, believing that it would be of great use to the agricultural interest.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in reply, said, he wished to say one word in consequence of what had been said by a noble Lord (Viscount Portman) with regard to that part of the Bill which related to freedom of contract. He stated most emphatically that the Government adhered to that principle enunciated throughout the discussion on the Bill—namely, that it was not their intention to interfere with freedom of contract, and that any interference with freedom of contract they should consider as tantamount to the defeat of the measure altogether. The Government fully appreciated the conduct of noble Lords on the other side; they were grateful to them for the very considerate attention they had given to the measure and for the many valuable suggestions they had made; and he must add that the opposition to the Bill had been conducted in
  570
  a manner that was most gratifying and satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 100.)
(The Lord President.)
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 100.)

  SECOND READINGS.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he need scarcely inform their Lordships that he felt very much the great importance of this measure which he had now the honour of asking them to read a second time, and the responsibility which attached to the Government for dealing with the question. But it would no doubt be in the recollection of their Lordships that in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech delivered from the Throne, these words would be found—Her Majesty stated that—
  "The various statutes of an exceptional or temporary nature now in force for the preservation of peace in Ireland will be brought to your notice with a view to determine whether some of them may not be dispensed with."
  He was sure he would not be contradicted when he said that no Government, whether formed of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on one side or the other of their Lordships' House and the House of Commons, could with any degree of satisfaction feel themselves compelled to propose measures which were of a stringent and coercive character directed against any portion of Her Majesty's dominions; and when these measures had once been passed it was the duty, as it must be the wish, of every Government that they should no longer be kept in a more stringent form than was absolutely necessary for the safety of the country for which they were enacted. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had thought it right and proper, as it had been their agreeable task, to look into those various statutes now in force, and see whether the state of Ireland and the condition of the country were such as to render it wise and proper to modify those measures and to do away with certain portions of them which were of the most stringent character. And they believed they were able to do this as to many such provisions. This Bill dealt with three separate Acts of

  571
  Parliament—first, with the Peace Preservation Act of 1870; secondly, it dealt with the Act passed against Unlawful Oaths and Illegal Societies; and, thirdly, with another Act passed for the protection of Life and Property in certain portions of Ireland, called the Westmeath Act. The Peace Preservation Act of 1870 amended an Act that was passed in 18S6. The Act of 1856, introduced in that year, was a considerably milder form of legislation than prevailed in the year 1848; but in 1870, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford), in consequence of the disturbed state of Ireland at that time, thought it necessary to amend the law, and the Act of 1870 was the consequence. By the provisions of that Act persons, although duly licensed to carry arms, were not authorized thereby to carry or have revolvers in any proclaimed district unless with a special permission. The Act extended the Whiteboy Acts to proclaimed districts. That portion of the Act it was now proposed to repeal. It also gave the Lord Lieutenant power to grant general search warrants in proclaimed districts authorizing the person holding the warrant to enter into any house or place to execute the warrant, at any time—by night as well as by day; and such warrants were in force for three months. It was proposed to abrogate this power by the present Bill. The Act also dealt with the sale of gunpowder: it gave arbitrary power to summon persons who were supposed able to give material evidence. The second part of the Act of 1870 gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to issue special Proclamations—a power which was now proposed to be given up by the present Bill. There were also what were commonly called the Curfew Clauses, which gave power to arrest at night under suspicious circumstances persons found in proclaimed districts who could not give a satisfactory account of themselves. That was now proposed to be repealed. There were also stringent and coercive powers given to the Lord Lieutenant to deal with the Press in Ireland, and to seize and deal with newspapers in a manner hitherto unknown in that country. The state of Ireland at that time might well be judged by the very coercive nature of that Act, which the noble Lord opposite felt himself bound to introduce and recommend to the consideration of Parliament. He believed, he might say, it was passed
  572
  with the general assent of Parliament—their Lordships did not think that the powers then asked were greater than the necessity of the case required. This Act was to expire in 1871. It had been renewed by other Acts for the protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland for two years, and in 1873 it was further renewed till the 1st of June, 1875. He had now sketched very briefly and hurriedly the various Acts of a stringent nature which existed in Ireland, and he thought no Government would be justified in retaining them one hour longer than they were believed to be necessary for the protection of life and property in that country. The present Bill was a modification of the Act of 1870. In the first place, it enlarged the power of the licensing authority. It enabled that authority to extend the licence to carry arms, and made it obligatory to grant a licence to persons having an agricultural holding on the production of a certificate signed by two magistrates in the Petty Sessions district of the person producing the certificate. The Act also diminished the punishment for carrying or having arms contrary to the law from two years, with hard labour, to one year, without hard labour. It also provided that warrants of search for, and seizure of, arms should be executed only between sunrise and sunset, and it reduced the time during which the warrants were to run from three months to 21 days. These were concessions made by the Government in the other House to the feelings of Gentlemen who were deeply interested in Ireland. Then the Bill allowed a summary trial by the magistrates in Petty Sessions, with power of appeal if the punishment allotted was more than one month's imprisonment. It also modified the form in which compensation should be granted, making it necessary that the Grand Jury should be of opinion that material evidence was withheld; and it gave the Judge large powers of review. These powers the Government proposed should be continued for five years. Then there was the 2nd and 3rd of the Queen—the Unlawful Oaths Act—modified by the 11th and 12th, relating to the administering and taking Unlawful Oaths, and to unlawful combinations and confederacies which had signs and passwords as a means of recognition, and also to societies for the distribution of arms, It

  573
  was quite evident that such societies, unless checked, might be the cause of considerable disturbance and danger, arising from the distribution of arms and the dissemination of revolutionary principles. Under these Acts the persons joining those illegal bodies were guilty of felony. The 11th and 12th of the Queen provided for the searching, under warrant, of places where those societies held their meetings in order to obtain information. By the 2nd and 3rd of the Queen, societies of Freemasons and Friendly Brothers which had registered themselves were exempt from penalty; but during the progress of the Bill through the other House of Parliament it was ascertained that some of those bodies in Ireland had not been registered, and the 4th clause of the Bill granted them an indemnity. With those modifications the Government proposed that the provisions of the Acts to which he had referred should be continued for five years. The third Act with which they proposed to deal was the Preservation of Life and Property Act of 1871. That Bill originated in the inquiries of a Committee of the other House of Parliament into the state of Westmeath, and parts of Meath and the King's County. Such a state of things was shown to exist that the Government of the day thought it necessary to come to Parliament for the very stringent provisions which were part and parcel of the Act as it at present existed. By that Act powers were given to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council to enforce its provisions by Proclamation in the districts to which it referred, a statement to that effect being laid on the Table if Parliament was sitting at that time, and, if not, within 14 days after it had met. Power was also given to arrest and detain without trial any person suspected of complicity with the Ribbon Society. These powers were so stringent that anyone at this side of the water would be very much surprised if any Government were to ask for them; but we must not forget that this exceptional legislation was intended to deal with societies which for many years had had the most baneful effect on the condition of Ireland. He would venture to read a few words on that subject from the Marquess of Hartington when Chief Secretary for Ireland, The noble Marquess said—
  574
  "The reports we receive show that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to issue its edict to secure obedience; nor has it even to issue its edict, its laws are so well known, and an infringement of them is followed so regularly by murderous outrage, that few, indeed, can treat them with defiance. Riband law, and not the law of the land, appears to be that which is obeyed. It reaches to such an extent that no landlord dare exercise the most ordinary of rights pertaining to land; and no farmer, employer, or agent dare exercise his own judgment or discretion as to whom he shall or shall not employ; in fact, so far does the influence of the society extend, that a man scarcely dare enter into open competition in the fairs or markets with anyone known to belong to the society."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 994.]
  That was a true statement of the facts of the case, and though the Acts were stringent, the results showed that they had been wisely conceived and carried out with moderation and discretion up to the present time. This Westmeath Act the Government proposed to deal with in a different manner from the other two Acts, and to limit its continuance to two years. It was to be hoped that by the end of that time it might not be necessary to prolong it in its present stringent form. It was to be borne in mind that the fact that the other two Acts were to be passed for five years did not by any means imply that they would be enforced all that time, because it would be the duty of any Government—and an agreeable duty it would be—if the necessity for them no longer existed, to propose to Parliament to repeal them. It would be satisfactory to noble Lords' on both sides to see that the legislation contemplated by this Bill was entirely in the direction of relaxation, and he hoped this would be an earnest of what the state of Ireland would allow to be done for the future. He hoped it might be the pleasing task of whatever Government might be in power still further to relax the severity of measures which were of an exceptional character, and that the day might not be far distant when it might not be absolutely necessary to have a different law in one part of Her Majesty's dominions from that which prevailed in another. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, this Bill was so important that he could not allow the second reading to pass without

  575
  taking the opportunity of offering a few general remarks upon it. His first feeling with regard to it was a hearty hope that it might be the last Coercion Bill they should ever see within those walls. His second feeling was that of satisfaction at the tone and substance of the statement their Lordships had just heard from the noble Duke. The noble Duke's statement was very fair to those who preceded him in office and whose painful duty it was to frame and carry the laws which the present Government were now partially repealing, and the statement was also fair and conciliatory to the people of Ireland. The Bill, in fact, amounted to a very large relaxation of the coercive code which had for some time been in force in that country. This fact, of which there could be no doubt, had been rather hidden by the course of events in "another place"—the almost endless Amendments moved by Irish Members during the progress of the Bill there, and the controversies to which those Amendments led, had concealed the fact that the measure very considerably relaxed the severity of the law. He did not grudge Her Majesty's Government any credit they might derive in Ireland from the fact that the Bill greatly relaxed the severity of the law; but he thought the people of Ireland ought to know that it was a fact, and that the Government and Parliament had been engaged all this time, not in framing a fresh law of coercion, but in largely relaxing the law which had been deemed necessary for some time past. With the very grave but still the limited exception of the Westmeath Act, the Peace Preservation Act, as it would stand in future, amounted to scarcely anything more than restrictions on the sale and possession of arms. If the Lord Lieutenant deemed it necessary, he might impose those restrictions widely; but, on the other hand, he might, if he deemed it safe and prudent, not apply the provisions of the law to any particular district. Of course, the Westmeath Act was a most exceptional measure, and one not to be justified except upon proof of absolute necessity. He hoped, however, it was known in Ireland that the late Government had had recourse to that Act with the greatest reluctance, and only upon proof of such necessity as made it the duty of any Government to endeavour to remedy the
  576
  evil. The Act was not passed until a full inquiry had been made by a Committee of the other House, consisting of distinguished statesmen of both political parties. Ribbonism was an evil which the ordinary law had always found the greatest difficulty in coping with, and nowhere was this fact more fully recognized than in the very districts which had been subject to the provisions of the Westmeath Act. Westmeath, Meath, and portions of the King's County had been acknowledged for years to be the hot-bed of Ribbonism. The most important omission from the existing Act which the present Bill made was, that of the clauses relating to the Press; and here again he agreed with the noble Duke that unless positive necessity could be shown for the maintenance of such an exceptional enactment Parliament could not be called upon or expected to re-enact it. At the time when the law was passed there were, as the noble Duke had said, certain Irish newspapers which held, day after day, such language as no Government could allow to continue. These prints in various parts of Ireland were at that time using language, which amounted to a direct and audacious incitement both to rebellion and to individual assassination. That was a state of things which no Government, whether popular or despotic, monarchical or republican, could allow to continue without making some attempt at prevention. But things had now changed for the better, and he was not prepared to say that the Government would at this moment have been able to justify themselves to Parliament if they had proposed a re-enactment of the clauses affecting the Press. For himself he rejoiced heartily that they were able to let them go. The propriety of the large relaxations now proposed cast no doubt on the necessity of the original enactments at the time they were made. That necessity, he thought, was amply proved by himself, when as Chief Secretary for Ireland, he introduced in "another place" the Bill of 1870, and by his noble Friend Lord Hartington when he brought in the Westmeath Act in 1871. Not that in those two years the state of crime was unprecedented, for outrages and assassinations had been far more numerous in earlier times, for in 1847, when Lord John Russell's

  577
  Administration introduced their Bill, the number of assassinations in Ireland amounted to 160; but, nevertheless, at that period of 1871–2 crime in Ireland was bad, dangerous, and increasing—being, moreover, of that kind which excited terror and paralyzed the energies of the country. The power which the Government now possessed of relaxing those severe laws had been brought about first of all by the success of the laws themselves, and next, he must add as his firm conviction, by the success of other laws of a very different character which were passed by the late Government at the same time. It would be un-candid in him if he did not say this, because when he performed the painful duty of introducing the Bill of 1870, he remembered saying most distinctly that it was his great consolation that Government at the same time intended to pass other measures, not of coercion, but of reform, to the effect of which, by moral means, it looked quite as much, and, in the long run far more, for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. Still, it was, of course, impossible to wait for the effect of permanent measures, which no one but an enthusiast could expect to act by magic. The then Government recognized the necessity of exceptional legislation, and that necessity was strongly illustrated by the very remarkable concurrence with which those measures were received by Parliament, and in almost every part of the House of Commons itself. It was an important fact, often forgotten, that the amount of Irish opposition to those measures was quite trifling. Not as many as 15 Irish Members, he believed, voted against the second reading of the Peace Preservation Bill in 1870; and the case was much the same the next year with regard to the Westmeath Act. It was difficult to know exactly what effect would be produced by the long debates which had recently occurred in "another place." It was difficult for a bystander to judge. There seemed to have been a curious alternation of embraces and reproaches between the Treasury Bench and the Irish Members; but he believed it would be recognized in Ireland that both the Government and Parliament had brought to the consideration of this subject the utmost patience, and the utmost anxiety,
  578
  to deal with Ireland as we would deal with this country, if we were legislating for any part of England or Scotland under similar circumstances. In conclusion, he must express his belief that the spirit of conciliation which characterized the noble Duke's speech to-night would not be without producing a good effect on Ireland.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he had no doubt the Bill was necessary—he regretted the necessity for its introduction as much as any Member of their Lordships' House; but he joined in the hope expressed by the noble Duke on moving the second reading that, long before the expiration of the five years, it might be possible to repeal this measure.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. 37. and 38. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthen moved that the House should meet tomorrow, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of considering the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Board for London to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 104.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.