Sitting of 13 June 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Ordered—Bow Street Police Court (Site)*
Second Reading—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration (Boroughs) [108]; Nullum Tempus (Ireland)* [167].
Committee—Army Corps Training [182]—r.p.; Offences against the Person [1]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Poor Law Amendment [78–190]; Smithfield Prison (Dublin)* [163].
Third Reading—Burghs (Division into Wards) (Scotland) Amendment [166], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

COLLIERY ACCIDENTS—THE WIGAN COLLIERIES.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Colliery Guardian," of date May the 26th, which gives a brief account of a coroner's inquest which was held on the 16th of May, in respect to the death of one Francis Bohan, who was injured in the Moss Pit, near Wigan, on the 1st of April, and died on the 11th of that month; if he has seen it is there stated by Mr. Hedley, Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines for that district, that—
"when he visited the place he found the ventilation very weak, and that the edge of the gob showed a good deal of gas,"
and to which he subsequently added—
"If people would continue to use gunpowder near gobs full of gas they might be pretty sure to have accidents;"
and, if in the circumstances he had directed that a prosecution should take place against the person who designates himself the owner of the mine for having had the mine at that date in a state "reasonably calculated to endanger the lives" of those that were employed in it? Also, if his attention has been called to an inquest touching the death of one William Radford, who, with five others, was injured by an explosion in the Bryn Hall Colliery, Wigan, on the second of May; if he has been informed by the inspector of the district, Mr. Hall, that the owners, or others for whom they ought to be responsible, so changed the condition of the mine that he the inspector was unable to tell how

1761
the explosion had occurred; and, whether he is about to order, or has ordered, proceedings to be taken against the owners of the mine for placing it beyond the power of the inspector to tell the cause of the disaster?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the accident occurred at the Moss Pit mine, near Wigan, on Saturday, the 1st of April, and the manager's report of it reached the Mines Inspector on the following day. The Mines Inspector went and visited the mine on Tuesday, the 14th, having had an engagement which prevented his doing so on the Monday. With the assistant Inspector he then examined the mine, and they both then agreed that the ventilation was inadequate, and that gas was visible at the edge of a gob near which a shot had been fired. One man was injured, who died on the 11th, and an inquest was held, at which the Inspector attended, when, on carefully cross-examining the witnesses, he failed to elicit any evidence as to the gas being present at the time of the accident. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against the person who discharged the shot. Previous to the inquiry the Inspector looked on the case as one that would furnish good cause for a prosecution; but the evidence given before the Coroner convinced him that a conviction could not be obtained. Another accident occurred at the Bryn Hall Colliery, Wigan, on the 2nd of May. The manager's report reached the Inspector on the 4th. It was then stated that six men had been slightly injured, and the Inspector inspected the mine on Monday, the 8th. On the 9th one of the injured men died, and an inquest was opened, which was adjourned. At the adjourned inquiry the evidence went to show that the mine was well ventilated and clear of gas, and the verdict of the jury was that neither the foreman nor the workmen were to blame, but they recommended greater precaution in working the mine in future. The Inspector said the result of his inspection of the mine was satisfactory, and he found no gas; but that, unfortunately, through a mistaken estimate of the injuries sustained at the time, and the expectation that no injury would be necessary, the shot hole from which the powder was stated to have been blown out was not left untouched, which would
1762
have afforded definite evidence of the character of the accident. It was a question whether under the Act the mine owner was required to retain the mine in the position in which it was left by the accident until the Inspector had made his visit. The Inspector's opinion was that the circumstances did not seem to warrant the institution of proceedings in that case. It was, however, to be regretted that the Inspector did not put off any other engagement to go and inspect the mine immediately he heard of the accident, and the Home Office had given instructions to insure that that course would be taken in future. He believed that the Inspector did make use of the words—"If people would continue to use gunpowder near gobs full of gas, they might be pretty sure to have accidents."

LOSS OF THE "AGRIGENTO."

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. E. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement in the "Times" of the 20th May is correct, that "In the matter of the loss of the" Agrigento," the proceedings are most unsatisfactory; indeed the Court of First Instance, before which the inquiries both as to the loss of life and as to the question of damages are being made, has violated the existing Treaty between this country and England; for England being on the footing of the most favoured nation under a recent Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Greece and Spain, it was necessary that a citation should have been served upon the English Consul, in order that he might attend the examinations; So far, however, was this from being done, that both the Consul and his agent were refused admission when they applied personally at the court, Although the tribunal, after an investigation of four weeks duration, has not yet been able to determine whether there exists a case for the higher Court; and although the responsibility of the affair is thus still undecided, the Italian captain has been allowed to leave the country, while the captain of the "Hylton Castle" is detained;" and what steps the Government have taken in the matter?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, the question had received, and was still receiving, the earnest attention of the Go-

  1763
  vernment. That ship was still under arrest, but the captain had never been in confinement. It was the opinion of the Government that the Consul or his agent ought to attend the examination. It was not desirable to state more than this now, because the matter involved a delicate question of International Law and also an important question of policy; but he had no doubt the course which the Government would adopt would be one that would recommend itself to the hon. Member and the House.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—PERSE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can inform the House of the cause of the dismissal of Mr. F. C. Maxwell from the situation of Assistant Master of Perse Grammar School, Cambridge, by the Head Master, Mr. J. B. Allen; and, whether he can lay any Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
VISCOUNT SANDON: I have no knowledge whatever of the case to which the Question refers, and I have no jurisdiction whatever over Grammar schools. The control of the masters of those schools rests generally with the Governing Bodies of those schools. I have referred the Question to the Charity Commissioners, and they inform me that no correspondence has passed with them on the subject of the dismissal of the second master; so I am afraid I can give no further information on the matter.

NAVY—MR. HENWOOD'S PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in reference to the fourth paragraph of Mr. Charles Henwood's Petition, in which he states that the so-called "confidential" documents were "furnished to him by the Solicitor of the Admiralty," he is satisfied and now prepared to state, not with standing "Mr. Bristowe the gentleman referred to was dead," that no grounds whatever exist, nor can it be remotely inferred, that the so-called "confidential" documents were surreptitiously obtained by Mr. Henwood; and further that the printing of those documents and the publication of the
  1764
  confidential reports of Sir Spencer Robinson and the honourable Member for Pembroke, were the acts solely of the Admiralty and their officers in the years 1870–71?
  MR. HUNT: denied that he had ever stated that Mr. Henwood had obtained confidential documents surreptitiously. Subsequently to the publication of the Papers relating to the Captain, Mr. Henwood, who commenced an action, he believed, against the printer, obtained a subpœna against the Solicitor of the Admiralty to produce the documents in question.

ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon Table of the House a copy of the Army Corps Training Bill, showing, by Clauses in juxta position, the alterations proposed from the Military Manœuvres Act passed last Session, before he moves the Third. Reading of the Bill in question?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the object of the Army Corps Training Bill was entirely different from that of the Military Manœuvres Act. It only proposed to take very limited powers in respect to nine different places, and he did not think that any good purpose would be answered by placing the clauses in juxta position.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
[Bill 78.] (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Poor Law Amendments.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 (The 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 25, extended).
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply to a question, stated that the object of the clause was to render a married woman living separate from her husband responsible for the maintenance of her children who might become paupers.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19, inclusive, agreed, to.
Clause 20 (Trustees may pay cost of pauper's relief out of annuity payable to such pauper).
MR. MELLORmoved, in page 5, line 30, to leave out from "him" to "such society," in lines 35 and 36, and insert—
"As a debt, or from his executors, administrators, or assigns, in case of his death the sum so expended by them as aforesaid, and the managing body of such society after notice from the clerk, served previously to the money being paid over, shall be required to pay the same and shall be exonerated on payment thereof from any further liability."
The hon. Gentleman said, he knew the case of a woman who was for 18 years kept as a pauper lunatic in the County Asylum, and it turned out that she was entitled to a considerable sum of money, and the relatives were compelled to recoup the parish the whole cost of her maintenance. Another and a similar case occurred last year. Had those paupers died in the Asylum the cost of their maintenance would have been borne by the Union, and the money which was recovered would have been lost to the ratepayers. By the alteration he proposed the Board of Guardians, under such circumstances, could recover any such advances with great facility and certainty.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
Provisions as to the Law of Settlement and Removal.
Clause 28 (Settlement for Irish persons by residence).
MR. PELLmoved, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "born in Ireland," Nothing could be more unfair to the poor of this country than the present Law of Settlement, the remnant of a monstrous code designed to prevent the industrial classes seeking their bread where they could best obtain it. Any attempt of the poor man to leave the poor parish, to exchange low wages where his labour was not required for higher terms where he would be welcome, was jealously impeded and interfered with by the various Laws of Settlement. Of late years these and the Laws of Removal had been somewhat modified, and further advance in the right direction was suggested in
1766
this Bill for the Irish poor. If this proposal was fair and just towards our fellow-countrymen in Ireland it was impossible to resist logically, or with effect, its application equally to those born in England and Scotland, on whose behalf, with every confidence that the Committee would support him, he moved his Amendment to leave out the words "born in Ireland." The large book he held in his hand was the one volume of Burns' Justice which treated of the Poor Laws, and he ventured to assert that more than one-third of it was taken up with the question of Settlement, one-half or more of which would disappear from the volume if this Amendment was accepted. He prayed the House to reflect on the condition of a widow and her children whose husband coming, perhaps, from the extreme North to settle, marry, and earn his bread in the South, left her unprovided for and dependent on poor relief. If removable, though after many years' association with local friends and employment, she might find herself transported to the midst of new scenes and new faces, without a friend to stand by her, while the litigation on this head was continual and most costly. He trusted the Government would accept his Amendment.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment. The question of Settlement was one which ought to be dealt with as a whole, and dealing with it in a partial way would simply tend to create one injustice instead of another.
LORD ESLINGTONcontended that as the subject of Settlement had been introduced into the Bill, it was only common justice that the advantages enjoyed by Irishmen should be extended to others.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the Committee would not enter upon a discussion of the general Law of Settlement. He pointed out that the grievance complained of by Irishmen was that a poor person who came over here from that country without any animus revertendi was liable, nevertheless, when he became a pauper, to be sent back to his native place, and that considerable hardship was thus often inflicted. He did not think, however, that anything would be gained by the adoption of the proposed Amendment, while he admitted that the question which it involved was one which

1767
was rapidly ripening in the public mind, and one with respect to which legislation could not be long deferred.
MR. STANSFELDsupported the Amendment. He objected to exceptional Poor Law legislation in regard to Ireland, which he declared did not commend itself either to Irish or English Members. He regretted that his right hon. Friend should have thrown away so good an opportunity of introducing a very important and valuable change in the English Law of Settlement.
CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, the people of Ireland did not act upon a principle of reciprocity in cases of removal of English paupers. The Irish did not send the English poor who became chargeable to the Irish back to England. In Ireland they had no Law of Settlement. He should certainly support the Amendment.
MR. FLOYERwas of opinion that considerable difficulty would arise if they adopted the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The object of the clause was in the interest of the poor, and with regard to the Irish, he thought a great many Irishmen would he glad if they could be sent back to Ireland. He approved of the principle laid down in the clause by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who had charge of the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would hold by it.
MR. LAWsaid, he was prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. It would go further than the Bill did at present towards abolishing the Law of Settlement by extending the same boon to the English as was proposed for the Irish pauper. A Committee of this House in 1847 strongly recommended the abolition of the Law of Settlement; but now, 30 years afterwards, we found ourselves just as we were, and if the House was not now prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member the probability was that we should in a quarter of a century be exactly in the same position. It was not desirable that there should be any difference between the laws of England, Ireland, and Scotland; and certainly the workpeople from one part of this United Kingdom should not be treated as aliens in another. It was time to adopt a uniform system in dealing with paupers born anywhere
1768
within the Kingdom, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. ASSHETONalso supported the Amendment, though he thought the better course would be to omit the clause altogether, leaving the question of the Law of Settlement to be dealt with separately.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, that the Amendment, so far from being an injury, would confer a benefit on the English labourer. He condemned the Government proposal as nibbling with the question.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHheld that the Amendment would not be a boon to the English pauper, because he might often prefer to go to his three years' residential settlement rather than to his natural settlement. The advantage of this clause was that it gave, for the first time, the Irish labourer in this country a settlement. The English labourer had a settlement already, and if he wished to improve that, he should wish, not to confine it to three years, but to make it a two years' or one year's settlement. The Bill would get rid of some of the scandals which now existed in the Law of Settlement; but he had not dealt with this question as a whole, partly from want of time, partly because he thought it ought to be treated in a separate measure, and partly because opinion was not ripe; but he admitted that public opinion was growing in the direction of abolishing settlement, and as soon as he could find time to do so he would endeavour to deal with the question.
MR. CLIVEasked the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the Amendment, with a view to its adoption, which would be a step towards the abolition of the Law of Settlement.
MR. CLARE READconsidered the preferable course would be in the framing of the Bill to strike out the whole of the clauses relating to Settlement. It was simply nibbling with a great question. It was a great hardship that after a man had left his native county and secured a settlement in another part of the county, where he had lived for many years, perhaps married and brought up a family, he should be sent back to the place in which he had originally secured his settlement. At all the conferences he had attended the law as it at present existed had been condemned

1769
in toto, and its abolition would be but just and right.
MR. MUNTZthought they ought to be content with the promise given by the President of the Local Government Board, and adopt the Bill as now proposed on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would, as soon as possible, take the whole question of Settlement into consideration.
MR. CARPENTER-GARNIER: submitted that the Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, or else withdraw the clauses relating to the Law of Settlement. He should be glad to see the existing Law of Settlement done away with, and supported the Amendment as an important step in that direction.
MR. M'LARENthought this clause should be altogether withdrawn. If it were not, he should certainly vote for the Amendment. He could not see that there was any principle to authorize the introduction into an Act of Parliament of anything about nationality. He objected to putting into any Act of Parliament that an Englishman, a Scotchman, or an Irishman was to have some privilege which, was not accorded to the other nationalities. They were all British subjects, part and parcel of the United Kingdom. It appeared to him that the main difficulty had been scarcely referred to in this discussion. The main difficulty, he apprehended, was this, that Irish paupers crowded into England and Scotland because there was no Law of Settlement in Ireland. Until they made a Law of Settlement for poor Irishmen in their own country, like that existing for poor Englishmen and poor Scotchmen, they would do no good. As to the clause now before the House, its only effect would be to facilitate a greater number of Irish paupers being settled in England, whilst the proposed Amendment would give the same facilities in regard to Scotland. He denied that there was at present any difficulty in Irish paupers getting a settlement in England or Scotland. On the contrary, great facilities were afforded them, and in consequence of those facilities England and Scotland were unduly burdened by the Irish paupers they had to support, but who ought to be supported by rates levied on the lands of Ireland.
1770
Lately there had been laid on the Table a Return bearing on this matter. It showed that there were 36,000 Irish paupers in one half-year in England and 40,000 in the other half of the same year. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had stated that in Ireland there was no power to return English or Scotch paupers. That was quite true, and he would be delighted to give them every facility for doing so. How many, however, would they be able to return as against the 40,000 Irish paupers maintained by England? Why, there were only 153 English-born paupers maintained in Ireland, so that, if clauses were put into this Bill to send those 153 back to England, it would be a very small matter. A still more expensive class was the lunatic paupers. There, again, the difference was enormous. There were 15 English-born lunatic paupers maintained in Ireland in one half-year, and 23 in another, but there were 1,280 Irish-born lunatics maintained in England. He would be quite willing to give his Irish Friends power to return the 15 or 23 to England, but if they did that, how could they ask England to maintain their 1,280? The case with Scotland was still worse, the proportion of ordinary paupers and pauper lunatics sent from Ireland being much larger. Whatever evil England suffered in the matter Scotland suffered it at least doubly. He repeated that the only effect of this clause would be to give additional facilities to Irish paupers to settle in England, whilst by an Amendment to the next clause it was proposed to give them the same facilities in Scotland. He thought they should make a Law of Settlement so as to make it to the interests of poor men to stay at home instead of forcing them to come here. At present it was no secret that lunatics were sent over from Ireland, landed at Liverpool, and sent direct to the lunatic asylum. They were sent over for the express purpose of being maintained out of the English rates. He was not asking any privilege for Scotland. He wished all three countries to be on the same footing; but to confer this special privilege on Ireland by Act of Parliament seemed to imply that the Irish labourer was much more valuable than the English or the Scotch. He found that the number of Scotch paupers who became

1771
chargeable to England was very trifling, and that whilst in Lancashire there were 251 Irish-born pauper lunatics, there were only 13 Scotch-born, showing that Scotland was not in the habit of sending her paupers over the Border in order to get rid of the burden. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn, or postponed.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmight stop that discussion by stating at once that he saw plainly it was the feeling of the Committee that the proposals of the Government should be extended to all paupers, whether English or Irish. He had been afraid to make that proposition, because he did not wish to enter on the general question of the Law of Settlement. He therefore proposed now to adopt the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and then he hoped the clause might pass. He would next suggest that the five following clauses should be struck out, with the understanding that, if necessary, he should be entitled to strikeout this clause also when the Report was brought up.
MR. PELLthanked the Government for accepting his Amendment.
CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that if this clause was struck out altogether, as recommended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), the right hon. Gentleman would break faith with the Irish Members altogether, because last year he promised that he would insert the clause as it stood.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RATHBONEmoved, in page 7, at end, to add—
"Provided, That a settlement acquired by a person under this section shall cease if, since the acquisition thereof, the person has for a period of twelve months ceased to reside in England; Provided also, That an order by which a person may be removed to or become chargeable upon a parish under this section shall not be made upon the evidence of such person only, without such corroboration as the justices or court think sufficient."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 33, inclusive, struck out.
Clauses 34 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 37 (The exemption of the Inns of Court and the Charter House removed).
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 10, line 4, after last Proviso, to add—
1772
"Provided also, That from and after the said first day of September next the registrar of the Charter House shall cease to be the overseer of the parish of the Charter House, and the justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the place shall forthwith appoint an overseer to act for the said parish until the time of the next annual appointment of overseers; and thenceforth appointments shall be made as in the case of other parishes, and every such overseer shall have all the powers and privileges, and shall be subject to all the duties which by law attach to such an officer."
Proviso agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following Clause:—
(Superannuation allowances not affected by services as registrar of marriages or sanitary officer.)
"If any officer seek a superannuation allowance from the guardians of any union or parish, or from the overseers of any such parish, under any statute applicable to such allowance, his service as a registrar of marriages, or under any of the provisions of the Sanitary Acts as defined by "The Public Health Act, 1875," or of that Act, shall not operate to prevent him from obtaining the same."
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, after Clause 24, to insert the following Clause:—
(Boys in receipt of relief, who are desirous of it, may be forwarded by the guardians for examination for the naval service.)
"If any boy not already an apprentice in the merchant service who, or whose parent or parents, shall be receiving relief in any union or parish, be desirous of serving in the naval service of Her Majesty, and be forwarded for approval by competent authority for such service, the guardians of the poor of such union or parish may enable any such boy to be so forwarded, and may pay out of their funds such sum, if any, as may be required by the regulations of such service for providing outfit or otherwise, and also such expenses as may be necessary to be incurred for the conveyance of such boy in charge of a proper person to and from the port or place in the United Kingdom at which he may be required to attend for examination, and, if accepted, for entry into such service."
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: suggested that there might be a difficulty with regard to the consent of the parents.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the Local Government Board would narrowly watch these cases and see that no injustice was done.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, after Clause 27, to insert the following Clauses:—
(Justices to make allowances to clerks of justices in respect of jury lists.)
"The justices of the peace of every county in quarter or general sessions assembled shall from time to time make such allowances as to them shall seem proper as compensation to the clerks to the justices in the several divisions in the county for their services in relation to the revision and allowance of the jury lists.
"Every such allowance shall be charged upon and be paid out of the county stock or fund."
Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: then proposed a new Proviso to the effect that—
"The managers of any district school may appoint and pay any officer or other competent person to visit and report upon the condition, treatment, and conduct of any poor child under the age of sixteen, who shall have gone into service from the district school."
MR. PAGETthought that it was the Guardians who should have this power. He moved to amend the clause by leaving out "the managers" and inserting "The guardians of any union or"
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, after Clause 33, to insert the following Clauses:—
(Proviso for pending orders of removal.)
"Those provisions relating to settlement shall not apply to any pauper in respect of whom any order of removal shall be pending at the passing of this Act."
(Rates made by overseers not now audited made subject to the audit of district auditor.)
"From and after the twenty-fifth day of March next, when an overseer shall make and levy any rate of assessment which is not now subject to be audited by the district auditor, such rate or assessment, and the accounts relating thereto, shall be submitted by him, and by the collector thereof, if any, to the said auditor, in the like manner, and with the like incidents, consequences, liabilities, and power of appeal as in the case of the poor rate made by him; and every other audit of such rate or assessment, if any, shall cease.
And the Local Government Board shall have the same power to make orders to regulate the keeping of such accounts as they have in regard to other local rates."
(Auditor's decision upon a joint account may be reversed or remitted in favour of one or some only of the parties.)
1774
"When an auditor shall have allowed, disallowed, or surcharged a sum in any account rendered to him jointly, and an appeal shall be made against the same, the decision of the auditor may be reversed, and the disallowance or surcharge may be remitted by the court or the Local Government Board, as the case may be, in favour of one or more of the persons appealing only without discharging the other person or persons against whom such decision of the auditor was pronounced."
Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:—
(Local Government Board may authorize election of guardians to hold office for three years.)
"The Local Government Board may by their order, whenever they may think fit, authorize and direct the ratepayers of any union or parish to elect guardians for such union or parish who shall remain in office for a period of three years, subject to such provisions regulating the annual retirement of one third of such guardians as the Local Government Board may think fit."
He said, that in many parts of the country there were complaints of the expense of annual elections, and there would be convenience in certain cases in having the election for three years.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid that he had received representations upon this subject from various parts of the country, and there was a good deal to be said for it. If the Committee were disposed to place such a discretion in the hands of the Local Government Board there would be security that it would be satisfactorily exercised.
SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that annual elections answered very well.
MR. PAGETdrew attention to the wording of the clause, which would give power to the Board to direct the mode in which the election should be held. This would be a very great power to entrust in the hands of any Board.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYalso thought it would be objectionable to give to the Board so large a power.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not undertake to bring up a clause to meet the object in view. He had received deputations from populous places in favour of such a change. He recommended the withdrawal of this clause, and that the hon. and learned Member should propose another on the Report more adapted to the object in view.
Clause, by leave withdrawn:
MR. PELLmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:—
(Notice to parishioners of persons relieved.)
"The clerk to the guardians of every union or parish shall at the close of each half year at Lady Day and Michaelmas, prepare from the accounts of the union or parish separate statements for each parish or township, the accuracy whereof shall be certified by his signature of the names of the persons relieved in the half year, as shown by the in-door and out-door relief lists, and shall, within one week from the close of each half year, cause the same to be delivered to the overseers of each parish or township respectively, and the overseers shall forthwith cause the same to be fixed on or near to the doors of their respective parish churches, or if there be no church, then at the usual place for affixing notices of parochial business."
He stated that as by this Bill paupers were disqualified from voting on the election of any officer whose appointment was determined by statute, it became a matter of necessity, if not of convenience only, that ready opportunities should be afforded for information as to who might be disqualified and who not. These lists were already in many districts generally affixed to the church doors with much advantage to the better administration of relief, and as a guide to those who might be charitably disposed in the distribution of their alms, and there seemed much reason and good reason for ensuring the universal publication of this information.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYopposed the clause, as it would be cruel to the persons relieved, and would give no information of the kind of relief given. It would involve great expense without any corresponding benefit.
DR. LUSH:said, it would be a species of branding most objectionable, and he hoped the Committee would not recognize the principle involved in the clause.
MR. WALTERsaid, this very suggestion was made not long ago, on some occasion when a question arose as to the right of persons receiving relief to vote, and the proposal was received with great disapprobation by the House. It might as well be proposed that lists of the prisoners in gaols should be put on the church doors. He trusted the Committee would not entertain the proposal.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: hoped his hon. Friend would not press this clause, at all events, in its present shape. The question as to whether sufficient publicity was now given might well be considered, but it would be going too far to
1776
cause the lists as a matter of obligation to be affixed to the church doors. The clause was also objectionable on the ground of expense. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press the clause to a division.
MR. PELLsaid, that in making the proposal, he had no desire to affix a stigma on these unfortunate people. If any stigma attached to pauperism at all, it attached, not to the pauper, but to the neighbourhood in which he lived, and to those who, by their false views of what real charity consisted in, encouraged the existence of pauperism, connected as it was known to be with out-door relief and inadequate wages.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid that, according to the present state of the law, husbands and wives, if both were above 60 years old, could not be separated in workhouses; under that age, however, they were separated. He moved, in page 4, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause:—
(Husbands and wives in workhouses.)
"When any two persons being husband and wife shall be received into any workhouse such two persons, although they shall not both be above 60 years of age, shall not be compelled to live separate and apart in such workhouse; and any rule, order, or regulation, and any provision of any Act to the contrary is hereby rescinded and repealed."
He had received one letter from a working man 63 years of age, who said he had brought up a large family without parish relief, but who was now unable to work. His wife was 56 years of age; and would it not be wicked, he (the writer) asked, if he were compelled to enter the Union, to separate him from the wife who had borne the toils and hardships of life along with him? It was said that the law was based on economic considerations, and that the workhouse was not a place for the purpose of breeding paupers. He hoped, however, that the House of Commons would not adopt this hard and cruel doctrine, which was meant to exclude the worthless and the undeserving, and apply it to well-conducted, industrious persons, reduced to poverty probably from no fault of their own. The workhouse should not be made a place of punishment for such persons; and if his clause were rejected on a division, he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board

1777
would at least consider whether there might not be some relaxation of the existing rule.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that without any disposition to undervalue the importance of the question, he must deprecate any lengthened discussion upon what, if carried, would be vital to the principle of the New Poor Law. It would not be proper to introduce so great a change in administration in this casual way. He did not think that the objection to the rule was general throughout the country, and to abolish the rule would be to break down one of the securities which the ratepayers now had against an undue application for indoor relief. The workhouse, of course, was not to be regarded as a place of punishment; but he saw no reason for so serious a change in the working of the Poor Law as that now proposed. He might observe that no special store was to be set upon the age of 60. All he contended for was no alteration should be made in the principle which now prevailed.
MR. MACDONALDsupported the clause. The working people of England looked upon the House of Commons as an assembly of Christian gentlemen, and he exhorted them to justify that character by supporting the Christian principle that those whom God had joined together no man should put asunder. He could say that the working classes of the country felt very strongly on the subject. He would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite and the House generally against the continuation of a principle in the Poor Law that he ventured to affirm was abhorent to the feelings of the great body of the people—namely, the separation of husband and wife of the aged poor. A time might come in the history of this country when the masses might consider by way of retaliation how far such a principle might be applied to all. He implored them not to provoke this issue being raised. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury he concluded ought to receive the support of everyone who laid claim
1778
to possessing in any way the feelings of humanity.
MR. HAMONDdeprecated the practice of the hon. Member who had just sat down of presuming to speak as the special mouthpiece of the working classes. No hon. Member represented them more than another; and he claimed, for his own part, to represent the working classes as much as anyone else in that House; for of his constituency of 22,000 electors about one-third were working men. In his opinion, they ought to adhere to the present system, and the clause as it stood went as far as it ought to go. They little knew what would be the result if married persons of all ages were allowed to live together in the workhouse—the idle and dissolute would exist at the expense of the hard-working and industrious artizan. He should have much pleasure in voting against the clause.
MR. WALTERfelt bound to say he did not think the existing law so very unreasonable. He was, at all events, not prepared to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury for its indiscriminate repeal, and he hoped the matter would not be pressed to a division. The hon. and learned Member could not but see that if the law were repealed in the unreserved language of the clause it would be competent for any two young people of 20 or so, who had no means whatever, to marry one week and go into the workhouse the next, to remain there as long as they liked. As it stood, therefore, the clause was unreasonable. At the same time, he would not object to a certain amount of discretion being allowed to the Guardians in the matter. In certain cases, where, for instance, the husband was 75 and the wife 55, the present regulation might very well be relaxed, and if the right hon. Gentleman introduced an Amendment to permit of that being done he should be glad to see it adopted. He had never been a particular admirer of what was called the New Poor Law, although it was passed 40 years ago. It was a piece of legislation which it would be impossible for him to discuss then; but it was passed at a period of what he might call general panic with regard to the amount of pauperism and its dangers. He believed that that panic was unreasonable and unfounded, and that the Act was conceived and passed in haste

1779
under a wrong impression and had led to great evils. It was passed, moreover, in a day when there was no free trade, no emigration, and when population had largely spread in every part of the country. He remembered the time when the man who built a new cottage was thought to be an enemy of the parish. So far from wishing the workhouse system to be made more stringent, he was decidedly in favour of relaxing it; and therefore he would go a certain length with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, but he could not support the clause as that hon. and learned Gentleman had framed it, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.
LORD ESLINGTONfelt satisfied that the manly speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) expressed the sentiments of many Gentlemen in that House. For himself, he wished to obtain from the President of the Local Government Board an authoritative declaration as to whether or not the Guardians had the discretionary power by law of relaxing the restriction in cases where they thought hardship would result from separating aged married couples? His own impression was that such a discretion was vested in the Guardians; but if it was not, it ought to be. It would be impossible to accept the naked proposition now presented to the Committee; but it should be remembered that cases of excessive cruelty had excited in the breasts of the people such a dread of the workhouse that they would rather starve than enter it.
MR. MUNTZthought it was impossible to deny that there had been a strong feeling all over the country during the last 40 years as to the separation of man and wife in the workhouse. Guardians ought to have a certain latitude allowed them in dealing with cases of emergency. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) whether on the Report he would not bring up a clause giving Guardians a discretionary authority in that matter if they did not possess it already.
MR. PELLsaid, that his experience as a Guardian, now extending over 30 years, convinced him that this separation of man and wife in the workhouse in the case of the sick and dying was not put in practice, and in the Union with which he was connected in London
1780
if a young husband in a workhouse was sick, dying possibly of consumption, cancer, or some other incurable disease, he would be found in the infirmary under the best possible care and not separated from his wife. Only last week he had been at the bedside of a man who was dying under such circumstances, whose wife was not only not kept away from him by the Guardians, but for whom, in reply to his (Mr. Pell's) inquiry of her he found every possible care had been taken and arrangement made for her comfort and presence at the sick bed of her husband in the workhouse infirmary.
MR. Serjeant SIMONcould not conceive of the case put by the hon. Member for Berkshire occurring in any well-managed Union—namely, that of two young people marrying in one week and going into the workhouse the next, and remaining there in their connubial felicity at the public expense. Though his clause was based on the broad principle of humanity, he would not press it if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would give him an assurance that he was ready to meet his views in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Berkshire and the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that though the Guardians were not empowered to allow young married people to live together in the workhouse, they could always in a hard case give them out-door relief, and it was inconceivable that such cases of hardship as had been described could occur. If a destitute young husband or wife was sick, they would not be taken into the workhouse, but would receive out-door relief.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 205: Majority 146.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONthen gave Notice of his intention to propose a clause on the Report.
MR. AGG-GARDNERmoved the following Clause:—
(Statement by owner pursuant to statute 7 and 8 Vic. c. 101, s. 15.)
"No statement by an owner pursuant to the seventh and eighth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and one, section fifteen, shall be valid, or shall entitle him to be placed or retained in the registry of owners entitled to vote

1781
for the guardians of the poor of any parish, unless such statement contain an address for service within the parish in respect of which such owner shall claim to vote, and all objections and notices left at such address shall be deemed to be sufficiently served on such owner."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHconsented to the clause, provided the words "or retained" were omitted.
Words omitted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Stanley, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.

  [BILL 182] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he wished to call the attention of the Secretary for War to what he regarded as a defect in the Bill—namely, the omission to associate civilians with the officers in command for the making of regulations with regard to cattle, &c. It was most important that the landowners and farmers should not be under the impression that they were liable to be roughly treated on the occasion of these Autumn Manœuvres. Should any such apprehension go abroad the most serious consequences might ensue. In the previous Acts relating to the Autumn Manœuvres it was provided that a commission of local gentlemen should be associated with the commander of the forces, to act jointly with him in doing certain arbitrary acts, such as the shutting up of cattle and sheep. This gave confidence both to the landowners and the farmers, and he regretted, therefore, that the present Bill was not similar in that respect to the previous Acts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a provision such as he had suggested.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought it most important, in the interests of the Army, that the suggestion should be acceded to. The popularity of the Army depended very much upon associating the civil element with the military in all transactions with the
  1782
  civilian. The change proposed this year would tend to render the Army unpopular. The Bill proposed to place in the hands of the military men entirely the decision of questions affecting cattle and crops. One of the instructions of the Bill was that the officers should make a regulation for the protection of cattle and sheep. Probably not one of the officers employed to command those stations mentioned in the Bill ever had a cow or sheep in their possession.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that on the Report of the Bill he would propose an addition to the 5th clause which would introduce the civil element which the hon. Gentleman required. There would be nine separate areas for training troops, and he would propose that the Lord Lieutenant of the county should appoint a person to act with the commanding officer in the drawing up of regulations to prevent damage being done to cattle or crops. He hoped that proposal would satisfy his hon. Friends.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 postponed.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 postponed.
  Clauses 5 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

BURGHS (DIVISION INTO WARDS) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
BURGHS (DIVISION INTO WARDS) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 166.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had been very anxious, indeed, to obtain from the Lord Advocate some statement of what this Bill really was, but he had entirely failed. The Lord Advocate was now present, and he should therefore move that the third reading of the Bill be postponed in order to afford an opportunity for the Lord Advocate explaining the object of this Bill. He must protest against the way in which Scotch business was done. Scotch Members had no means whatever of ascertaining what was the meaning of the Bills brought in, owing to the uncertain and irregular hours of the night

  1783
  when Scotch business was taken up; and as regarded the Bill now before the House, he defied any man to ascertain from the Census Returns how boroughs were divided. It was different with the Returns of the English Census. There information was obtainable about the divisions of towns, and even useful information about Scotch towns which the Scotch Census did not furnish. By these omissions Scotch Members were entirely without the information which they ought to have. The Bill ought not, therefore, to be read a third time without more information than they had at present. He had done his best to get information from the Lord Advocate, but had failed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was no part of his duty to take the part of the Lord Advocate; but he might remind the House that the Lord Advocate, in moving the second reading of the Bill, did state the full nature of the Bill, and was understood to say that it had reference to the burgh of Wick. He only wished to say that the Lord Advocate did make a statement.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION (BOROUGHS) BILL.
(Mr. Alfred Marten, Mr. Torr, Mr. Birley, Mr. Dodds.)
PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION (BOROUGHS) BILL.

  [BILL 108.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ALFRED MARTEN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it was intended to amalgamate the lists of voters for municipal and Parliamentary elections, so that one list would suffice. By that means there would be a large saving in the 168 boroughs which would be affected by the measure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second, time."—(Mr. Alfred Marten.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not oppose the second reading, but said it was probable he might have to suggest a modification in some of the clauses.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.— [BILL 1.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.— [BILL 1.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYobjected to proceeding in the absence of a body of Members largely interested in the Bill. They had had some experience of this kind of legislation in Scotland, and he was inclined to think this Bill was one of still greater stringency. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the hon. and learned Member who had brought in the Bill (Mr. Charley) was hardly dealt with, as he understood, there was no real opposition.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the hon. and learned Member had no reason to complain. Why did he not bring his Bill forward at a reasonable hour? It was 10 minutes to 7 o'clock, and the last time the matter came before them it was past 1 o'clock in the morning. He understood that a great many Members had conscientious objections to the Bill, though he did not know what they were.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

LONDON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  LORD ELCHO,in rising to move the following Resolutions:—
  "(1.) That the reform of the government of the Metropolis, with a view to its more efficient, uniform, and economical administration, is a question of primary importance, and deserves the early attention of Her Majesty's Government. (2.) That such reform should be based on the establishment of one municipal administration for the whole Metropolis,"

  1785
  said, that a few years ago the right hon. Gentleman now President of the Local Government Board said that "London was the best governed city in the world." That declaration, which was made in an after-dinner speech at Willis's Rooms, must, it need hardly be said, be taken cum grano salis. Indeed, it was only necessary to apply certain gauges to it to show that the statement was not correct. He would join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, and apply to his assertion the test of pure air, the gas and water supply, and the arrangements for extinguishing fires. The tests of good municipal administration were that the air should be made as pure as possible by good sewage and the removal of effluvia and impurities; that the water should be pure and the supply constant, and not intermittent, and sufficient for keeping the streets cleansed. There should also be the ready means of speedily extinguishing fires. There ought, moreover, to be an abundant supply of gas, pure, and at a reasonable price. The streets should be well lighted; the markets should be readily accessible and in convenient localities; the police should be efficient; the poor should be properly taken care of, while vagrancy and mendicity were suppressed; and the houses should be well constructed. Finally, there should be unity of administration and direct representation—that was to say, those who spent the money should be directly responsible to those whose money they spent. Well, it would be well for them to consider how far these great and important objects were carried out under the present system. No doubt, if they compared the present state of the metropolis with what it was in 1855, when the Metropolitan Board of Works was established, a great improvement had been effected. There were at that time no less than 150 local corporations levying rates and tolls. The Metropolitan Board had carried out a great scheme of main drainage, but the Vestries were still responsible for the minor sewers, and there was not sufficient controlling power on the part of the Metropolitan Board to insist on the minor drainage being carried out. There were now 6,000 miles of sewers constructed, but there was still a divided authority. The Thames Conservancy, which made the regulations relating to the river, were a different body from the
  1786
  Metropolitan Board, and they complained that the outfall of the main drainage had not been placed lower down the river, and that it interfered with the navigation. Last year he put a Question to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which showed the want of control on the part of that body. In hot and dry weather all macadamized streets had an intolerable smell; and he asked his hon. and gallant Friend whether he would take care that the streets should be properly watered and uniformly cleansed. The hon. and gallant Member replied that the Board had no power to compel the Vestries to wash and cleanse the streets. Take, again, the supply of water. Various Commissions had reported that it was essential that water for drinking purposes should be taken from springs, and not from rivers. They declared that there was no river in England of sufficient length to free the water from the impurities of any sewage that might be poured into it, yet the sewage of 1,000,000 persons entered the Thames above the point from which the water for the supply of the metropolis was taken. Notwithstanding the Report of the Rivers Pollution Commission, the metropolitan water supply was taken from the river, and the system of supply was intermittent instead of being constant. Whenever the supply was intermittent the water must be stored, and the London water waskept for the greater part in open butts, where it contracted impurities very hurtful to health. The poor suffered more than the rich from this system; but, although Manchester and other towns had adopted the system of constant supply, the Metropolitan Board had done nothing to secure it for London. It appeared from the Report of the Metropolitan Board for 1872 that it had abstained from calling upon the water companies to give a constant supply. The question had come before the Committee now sitting on the means provided for the extinction of fire in London, and it appeared that the non-existence of constant supply and of hydrants in London involved three deaths, three cases of personal injury, and three bad fires, to one of each in Manchester, which was provided with hydrants and had a constant supply. It was essential that water should be made immediately accessible for the extinction of fires,

  1787
  because the difference between obtaining it in five minutes and waiting 15 minutes made all the difference between extinguishing a fire in the building in which it originated, and simply preventing its extension to surrounding structures. Of course hydrants would be of no use without constant supply. If the Metropolitan Board had power to compel the provision of both, why did it not exercise it? and if it had not power, why did it not seek to obtain it? We ought to have in London, in respect both of water for drinking and water for extinguishing fires, advantages equal to those enjoyed by Manchester and other towns. It had been represented that the introduction of constant supply into the whole Metropolis would involve a total cost of £4,000,000; but the experience of Manchester and other towns, as collated by the Committee of the Society of Arts, showed that the cost of the necessary changes need not exceed 10 s. a house. He trusted the House would consider that expense ought not to stand in the way of a prime necessity for the health of individuals and the safety of life and property. He trusted the Committee that was considering the question of the extinction of fires would pay some attention to the cognate question of the construction of houses in reference to which the Metropolitan Board was the local authority. In reference to the supply of gas there was no local authority, and it was the opinion of Mr. Fitzjames Stephen and others that in what the Metropolitan Board had done for the benefit of the public it had allowed its zeal to outrun its powers. In winter many streets were ill-lighted when the shops were closed, and recently the pressure was so weak that the lights went out in his own house—an occurrence involving the risk of danger everywhere, through the escape of gas where it was not relighted when the pressure was renewed. The practical action that was first taken, and that resulted in the legislation of 1860 and 1868, was taken at the instance of individual ratepayers; and there was reason to hope that now the amalgamation of gas companies would facilitate the purchase of their works by alocal authority. The Corporation of Manchester made a profit of about £50,000 a-year out of the supply of gas, and had altogether made
  1788
  a profit of £1,000,000, and this was devoted to the reduction of the rates and the making of local improvements—a fact which should suggest to the ratepayers of the Metropolis not only what they might gain in efficiency of lighting, but what they were losing by the continuance of the companies. As regarded streets, the Metropolitan Board could not make new ones without special Parliamentary authority, which had been obtained for the Northumberland Avenue, the Embankment, and Queen Victoria Street; and the only control the Board had over the Vestries was to prevent them taking up both sides of the streets at once. Subject to this slight control the Vestries could pave them or not, or tear them up as they pleased; and the time usually chosen for covering the macadam streets with metal some inches deep was when Parliament met, and there were more carriage wheels and horses' feet to reduce it to a proper state than there would have been when town was empty. He wondered that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did not interfere. The greasy condition of the streets, besides being unhealthy, involved a destruction of life greater than that attributed to the car of Juggernaut, for Returns showed that 200 people were killed, and 2,885 persons were maimed in the Metropolis in the course of a year. Statisticians calculated that so long as the streets remained in the same slippery state the destruction of life would be undiminished. But there could be no hope of improvement while there was divided jurisdiction, and they had the Vestries overlapping, interlacing, or antagonistic. Here he had a map of London, showing the different divisions for parochial purposes of the Metropolis. It presented the appearance of a kaleidoscope; Joseph's coat of many colours could not have had more than there were in that map. Perhaps the most objectionable of the City privileges was that relating to the markets. Many years ago medical reform was recommended to the House by the consideration that eminent medical men coming from Edinburgh or Dublin, such as Sir James Simpson or Mr. Corrigan, who practised within seven miles of Charing Cross, would be subject to prosecution. Well, at the present moment, without the sanction of the City, no market could be established

  1789
  within seven miles of Guildhall, and the effect was to raise the price of provisions and diminish the supply. It was on that account that in walking along the best streets of the West End they were liable to brush against carcasses hanging up at the butchers' shops. Such a sight could not be seen in any other European city, and it was a disgrace to our civilization. The state of our markets was another reason why it was desirable that there should be an improvement in our municipal administration. As regarded the Police, he was far from complaining, but the police were a divided authority. If they were united they would be more efficient, and thieves would be less so. There was no municipal local authority for dealing with the poor. The sturdy beggars and vagrants were turned off the streets, not by the action of any municipal authority but by private societies—the Charity Organization and Mendicity Societies, which were doing a great deal of good in the Metropolis. For building purposes, the Metropolitan Board was the local authority, and their power extended over the City. No doubt there had been a great improvement in the Metropolis in respect of buildings; but there still were what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) called the "rookeries" in which the poor were left to rot in many parts of London. Their existence supplied a forcible argument in favour of having one municipality. The Act which did so much credit to the Conservative Government, and especially to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, did not entrust its powers to the local divisions he had shown on the map, the parish vestries, but to a much wider body, the Metropolitan Board of Works; so that the House of Commons was in this matter aiding in getting, so far as it could, unity of administration. He now came to what lay at the foundation of all satisfactory municipal administration. Without unity there must be inefficiency and waste; with unity and control came efficiency and economy. He found from an excellent work by Mr. Firth on Municipal London, that the Metropolis was divided for various purposes in the following manner:—There were 56 separate divisions for the purposes of the Building Act; 39 for local government; 37 for the Metropolitan Board and presentations; 39 for the
  1790
  Poor Law; 28 for districts of superintendent registrars; 29 for burial boards; 20 for the police force; 16 for district schools; 15 for Militia purposes; 15 for police courts; 10 for school boards; 10 for the boroughs; 10 for the gas companies; 10 postal divisions; 8 for water companies; and 3 separate County Court jurisdictions. As an instance of costliness of administration under the present system, he would compare Marylebone and Westminster. These two districts were about equal in size, and each raised £200,000 a-year from the rates. In Marylebone the borough and the Vestry districts were conterminous; but in Westminster there were five Vestries, five Vestry clerks, and separate sets of officials, as compared with one set of officials and one clerk in Marylebone. The result was that the money was raised in Marylebone at one-third of the cost at which it was raised in the rest of Metropolis. This led to the question of direct representation. There was direct representation in the case of school boards, but not in the case of the Metropolitan Board or local administration generally. That was essential, especially when they considered the enormous sums these local boards had to deal with. For example, the total income of the Metropolis was £15,806,668, and the expenditure £15,117,749. He had seen it stated that the annual loss to the Metropolis for want of better administration was something like £250,000, and if the same management as to gas and water were exercised in London as in Manchester, the saving might be £500,000 per annum. It could not be said that the financial affairs of London were economically administered. In Leeds, Manchester, and Bradford they saw a very high development of municipal government. Liverpool profited by its docks in a way which London did not. Manchester managed gas and water with good results. Leeds and Bradford had, or was about to have, their gas and water in their own hands. They all had direct representation, which showed the wisdom of the Act of 1835, so far as Provincial municipal government was concerned; but from that Act London was excluded. The contrast was not less striking in the case of foreign cities and towns. Every one who had been in Paris must have observed that their system of lighting, paving, and cleansing the streets was

  1791
  greatly in advance of that which obtained in London. What a contrast did these capitals present in a snowstorm. They all knew how the streets of London might be blocked up for weeks. Paris had hydrants in all directions, an abundant supply of water, and large openings corresponding with good subways, so that as soon as snow fell jets of water were brought to bear, and the result was that the streets were kept clear both of snow and slush. He would next turn to the opinions of public men and the action of Parliament in this matter, and also to the expression of the Press and of public opinion, and it would not be drawn from them that London was the best governed City in the world. He would enunciate, as shortly as possible, what view Parliament and public men had taken of this question. In 1837 the Royal Commissioners of 1835 made a special Report on the Corporation of London, and recommended that there should be one municipal authority for all London. The Corporation undertook then to bring in a Bill to expand its jurisdiction over the whole Metropolis, but never did anything. The Commissioners of 1854 left the City undisturbed, but recommended the division of London into municipal boroughs, each with a local council and, over all the Board of Works. In 1855 they had Sir Benjamin Hall's Bill, which established the Board, but did not adopt the borough municipal boundaries. Next they had Mr. Ayrton's Committees, which proposed a centralization system, ignoring the City Corporation and appointing a Board of Works (the Government having a voice), with control of gas, water, poor law, police, &c. In 1837 Lord John Russell had promised a Bill on this subject, but parties were nearly balanced, and the City threatened opposition. Some years afterwards the City elected Lord John Russell as one of its Members, and the Bill was dropped. In 1856 there was a Police Bill introduced, but Sir George Grey yielded to pressure. In 1858 there was another Government Bill, which was ultimately withdrawn. In 1859, again, a Government Bill was introduced and withdrawn. In 1860 one more Bill was introduced and withdrawn. In 1863 another Police Bill was introduced, but without practical effect. In 1867 and again in 1868 there were the Bills of Mr. Mill, which were withdrawn. There was also the
  1792
  Bill of Mr. Buxton, which was introduced and read a second time. This brought the question down to the time when he had endeavoured to deal with it. Such were the attempts at legislation on this subject. Then, with reference to the views of public men, they had the strongly-expressed opinions of Lord Russell, Lord Brougham, Sir George Grey, the present Home Secretary, and of Lord Chelmsford, a Conservative Lord Chancellor, who, when he received the Lord Mayor, in 1867, impressed upon him the necessity of moving with the times and the importance of improving municipal government in the Metropolis. He might also refer to the opinions expressed by Lord Chief Baron Kelly, Lord Aberdare, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole), the present Secretary for War, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who gave the reform of the government of London a prominent place in his famous Greenwich address. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), also, at a public dinner of one of the Guilds, lamented the hardness of the fate which condemned him to vestry government on one side of Temple Bar, when on the other side there was a comparatively small population in the enjoyment of excellent municipal government. On that occasion the present Lord Mayor, replying to the toast of his health, said he was no friend of vestries, and he did not believe in the Metropolitan Board of Works, regarding it simply as a vestry in itself; whereas the Corporation of London, he added, had never lagged in the pursuit of social progress, and in that respect it had always been upheld by its ancient Guilds. If the right hon. Gentleman were present he should have claimed his vote in favour of this Motion. On no public question that he knew had there been such an universal consensus of opinion with a view to obtain an improved system of government for the Metropolis. He, therefore, in full confidence, would invite the House to assent to his first Resolution; that this was a question of primary importance and deserved the early attention of Her Majesty's Government. He came now to the second Resolution—that "reform should be based on the establishment of one municipal administration for the

  1793
  whole Metropolis." It was upon that basis, and on that alone, that we could safely and effectually build; and we must do so now, if it should be necessary to build, like Nehemiah and his followers when restoring Jerusalem, with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other to slay the lions and the giants in the shape of self-interests and abuses which stood in our path. It was a Bill on that basis which he introduced last year. An outcry had been raised against the Bill. It was said that its promoters were making an attack upon the vestries, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the City Corporation, whose funds they intended to appropriate. Never were charges more unfounded. He did not stand there to say that the vestries had not individually done good work. He did not find fault with the Metropolitan Board of Works, but gave them all honour for the new streets and the noble Embankments which they had created, for the Parks which they had made, and for the open spaces which they had saved for the people of the Metropolis; neither did he stand there to decry in any way the City Corporation in its administration. Far from it. No one more readily than he and those with whom he was acting respected and admired that ancient historic corporation of which we had all, as Londoners and Englishmen, so much reason to be proud. We knew that in early days the office of Lord Mayor was one of almost sovereign authority; but even now, though shorn of much of its ancient dignity and authority, yet Sultans and Suzerains, Princes, Peers, and commoners alike gladly partook of his splendid hospitality; and in such estimation was the office of Lord Mayor of London held abroad that on the occasion of the visit of the last Lord Mayor to Paris he and the Lady Mayoress had an escort of 100 dragoons. Further, we knew how readily the City took the lead in all national subscriptions for the relief of suffering humanity, whether at home or abroad. But whatever might be the estimation in which the City of London was held, whatever might be its merits and defects, as well as those of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of vestries, and other public bodies charged with the administration of the affairs of this vast Metropolis, they were all, as at present constituted,
  1794
  and with divided authority, incapable of rightly, efficiently, and economically administering the concerns of what would soon be 4,000,000 of men. It was only in unity of authority that efficient local government could be found, and that he sought to obtain by extending the jurisdiction of the City, which now extended over 700 acres only, over the "greater London without," which covered over 78,000 acres. How that should be done, what the exact form of the constitution of such an extended municipality should be, what position in it the Metropolitan Board of Works and other existing administrative bodies should occupy, that was not the time or place to consider, as those were matters of detail which could only be satisfactorily worked out by responsible Ministers in communication with the City and local authority. All he asked the House to do was to affirm the principle of unity of administration in any scheme that might be adopted for the improved local government of the Metropolis. In doing so he was supported by the Report of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners of 1835, by the Registrar General, and by the Metropolitan Board of Works, who in their Report upon Mr. Buxton's Bill in 1869–70 said that they had come to the conclusion that there should be one central municipal government with jurisdiction over the whole of the Metropolis. The Press also had been throughout unanimous that something should be done, and that that something should take the form of unity. The leading journal, when last year's Bill for establishing one municipal government for the whole Metropolis was before the country, said—
  "The first condition of a complete remedy is the creation of a municipality for the whole town. The provisions of Lord Elcho's Bill seem to meet the case very completely, and at the same time to pay all due regard to the very stubborn claims of the vested interests of the old City Corporation. We hope only that the main principle it embodies will be accepted by the great interests which it will affect; that all Londoners will agree heartily in putting an end to the anomaly and inconvenience of the present artificial divisions of power within the single area of the Metropolis; and that the whole of London may thus be at length united into one great municipality—the richest, the most intelligent, and the most powerful in the world—and fitted, therefore, to be, as we may confidently trust it will be, a model to all others."
  He knew that he should be met by the

  1795
  argument that by establishing a colossal London they would have an Imperium in Imperio; but this was no new fear. In 1602 Queen Elizabeth issued an edict, when London contained 145,000 inhabitants, that not more than one family should live in a house, and that no more houses should be built in London, because such a great aggregation of human beings could not be constrained to "fear God and honour the Queen." In the time of James a similar edict was issued, and that Monarch added a scientific reason in reference to the maintenance of health; and even at the time of the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1855 some people were afraid of the establishment of so great a power in the State. He (Lord Elcho) had no fear of a corporation for London being dangerous to the State. The Paris Commune might be referred to; but his answer was that London was not Paris. No doubt Paris had governed France, but London had not yet governed England, and he did not think that it was likely it would do so. In this country, Birmingham and Manchester, instead of taking their cue from the metropolitan city, flattered themselves that they shaped the policy of the Empire. Further, they had confidence in the good sense and love of order possessed by the people of this country, who had been trained in an atmosphere of municipal and local government, the conduct of which would afford full employment for the energies of the most active and ambitious of its citizens. If the worst came, it must not be forgotten that the police would be under the supreme control of the Government. He thought, therefore, it would be safe gently to re-organize their local administration in the form that appeared best and most effective without fear of the Lord Mayor of the period, however extended his jurisdiction, coming to the House of Commons and substituting his mace for the Royal "bauble" which lay on the Table. He had no means of knowing the course which Her Majesty's Government would take in reference to this question; but as they could not deny the truth of his first, he hoped they would not look with disfavour on his second Resolution. The good and economical local government of the Metropolis and the health of its inhabitants, which might be so cared for as to reduce in a model city the death-rate to eight or
  1796
  even five per 1,000, were social benefits that should commend themselves to a Conservative Government that had adopted sanitas sanitatum as the key-note of its domestic policy. As far as the present death-rate was concerned he was not quite certain; but, whatever it might be, his general argument that it could be considerably reduced was not affected by the fact. The question was one not merely affecting the health and wellbeing of the millions who resided permanently in London, but of the Sovereign, who possibly might some day again reside in London; of the Peers and Members of the House of Commons who annually assembled in London for the performance of Parliamentary duties; of the many suitors and witnesses who thronged the Law Courts and Parliamentary Committees, and of the thousands of persons whom business or pleasure anually brought to the capital of the British Empire. In the name of all these, and for the credit of Anglo-Saxon municipal administration, he called upon the Prime Minister boldly to grapple with the urgent question of London Local Government. As far as his personal connection with the question was concerned, he could not hope at once to prove successful; but, treading upon ground already broken by Mill and Buxton, he should at any rate possess the satisfaction of having contributed to the ultimate success of the great necessary work in the accomplishment of which they were able pioneers.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the reform of the government of the Metropolis, with a view to its more efficient, uniform, and economical administration, is a question of primary importance, and deserves the early attention of Her Majesty's Government."—(Lord Elcho.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, no one can fail to admire the perseverance of the noble Lord, or to appreciate the force of the general principle which he has laid down, but it does not follow that everyone must admire that principle. It might have been hoped that the noble Lord would have shown more sympathy with the spirit which has made the great improvements of London in late years. While one listened to the noble Lord, it seemed more than doubtful whether the Thames had been embanked, and how the other improvements around this

  1797
  House and other parts of the Metropolis could have been effected. Who could believe that this is the London which the noble Lord describes as the worst governed municipality of anything like the size in the world; could this assertion be consistent with the fact that this great Metropolis is the most peaceful community of the kind in the world? The noble Lord appears to be possessed by the one dominant idea, that there can be no good Government unless the governing body be elected on the principle of direct representation, and be combined on a uniform system. I have had some experience in reference to this matter, for I am the survivor of the Members of this House who took an active part in the passing of the measure for the incorporation of Birmingham. While that Bill was passing through Parliament I became uneasy as to its probable effect, because it was founded upon the system of uniformity of franchise, and upon the principle of direct representation. I have lived to see that measure result in the domination of a single faction. Any one who is acquainted with the Corporation of the City of London and its history must know that it deserves to be considered one of the perennial sources of the spirit of free self-government. The immense variety, nay, the apparent incongruity of the representative system of the London municipalities, secure that all sections of the people shall be represented. I defy the noble Lord to apply the principle of direct representation and of uniformity of election to any large municipality, and to save the Corporation, which he would thus create, from the domination of a single faction, the greatest imperfection that can attach to the organization of any Corporation. I speak with regard to this matter after anxious thought upon this subject, long since brought home to me, and after an experience of some years. That which I admire most in the form of government that has grown up in London—for it is a growth, the produce of the popular intelligence and of the popular will—is the variety of representation it exhibits; the variety of social position and interests which it represents; and again I defy the noble Lord to produce that combination of interests, which is the essence of true representation, by any system of direct representation and uniformity.
  1798
  In the course of his speech the noble Lord adverted several times to his Bill of last year. I have here an extract from his speech, when introducing it, and, with the permission of the House, I will produce it in justification of the observations I have made. A Bill, not the Bill of the noble Lord, had been circulated. The noble Lord, and I suppose the Asssociation with which he is connected, determined to alter, and, as they thought, improve upon it; and the noble Lord said—
  "What he held himself to be individually responsible for was the Bill as it had since been altered. The changes introduced must render it more acceptable to the Government, to the House, to the Corporation of London, and to the Metropolis in general. They might be stated in a very few words. In the first place, the changes would secure Imperial authority if they created a great united municipal government over 5,000,000 of people. This would be done by giving a veto to the Secretary of State, or to some authority on the part of the Crown, whose approval would be necessary for the appointment of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Recorder, and the Common Serjeant."—[3 Hansard, ccxxii. 237.]
  Thus the appointment to all these important offices would have been virtually in the hands of the Secretary of State. This showed little confidence on the part of the noble Lord in the electoral and municipal system he advocated. The noble Lord said—
  "Then, as regards the police, in the Bill as originally drawn they were placed wholly under the control of the Corporation; but it was manifest that the objections urged against this proposal rested on sound grounds, and it was now proposed to do nothing at all in reference to the police, but to leave it to the Secretary of State."—[Ibid.]
  Here, again, the whole control of the police in the Metropolis was to have been taken from the Corporation under the noble Lord's Bill, notwithstanding their present efficiency, and handed over to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  "But (continued the noble Lord) to leave it to the Secretary of State and the House of Commons in Committee to decide how they would deal with the Imperial question of the police of this vast Metropolis."—[Ibid.]
  Therefore, all that the noble Lord ensured by his Bill was the taking away the control of the police from the Corporation of the City of London, though it is well known and admitted on all hands to be well managed, in order that he

  1799
  might place it in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but so little conscious was he of what regulations might be needed under the altered circumstances, that he left the whole of these undescribed, to be fashioned according to what might be called the chance decisions of this House. I trust, Sir, that the House will decline to enter upon the vast scheme of the noble Lord, and will remain satisfied with the progress London is making in the way of improvement. Every foreigner who has visited London in former years and has returned hither of late admires the extensive changes which have been made and are now making. Some foreigners may, indeed, prefer the municipal constitution of Paris, or of some other Continental city; but the foreigners I have met with express their great satisfaction at the steady progress which has been made in the improvement and adornment of the English capital. Deprive the Corporation of London of its ancient authority and dignity, and, I put this to the House, would the Corporation then occupy a position that would enable it to relieve the Sovereign of the burden of receiving and entertaining the distinguished guests, who visit this country from time to time, in the becoming manner it now does? Moreover, I would ask the House, whether any of us really desire to increase the patronage already possessed by the Ministers of the Crown? Has not the patronage of the Ministers of the Crown already increased to such an extent as to threaten the independence of this House? Is not that patronage still increasing to such a degree that it has become a subject of jealousy to every man who values the Constitution of this country? ["No, no!"] Hon. Members may object; but I venture to say that there is great impatience growing up in the country at this vast increase of patronage; and that, if anything could increase that impatience, it would be the robbing of its patronage, its responsibility, and its independence, such a Corporation as that of London, which has for centuries enjoyed the confidence of the country to such an extent that it is not only the model for, but is becoming the centre of, municipal action throughout the Kingdom. The noble Lord made an attempt to prove that the death-rate of London is high; he blun-
  1800
  dered in doing so, and when he was told that instead of 30 per 1,000 the death-rate was 10 less, he replied that really it did not matter, as so trivial a difference could not lessen the force of his argument. Why, Sir, the whole ground for legislation, if there be any ground whatever, is based upon sanitary considerations; and I ask the noble Lord whether sanitary measures are not in progress in London? Further, are they not in progress without any violation of those great principles of self-government which constitute so chief an element of the strength of this country? Why do I say that they constitute the strength of this country and of the Empire? Because it is through them that the thought, the intelligence, the will of the nation, throughout all the variety of its social phases, is brought into harmonious action with the Government of the Queen and finds expression in this House. In respect to this question, the noble Lord certainly appears not to be a Conservative. His speech was that of a Radical, and a Radical not of very high type. And when I look at the mechanical character of the means upon which the noble Lord relies for producing an improvement in the municipal government of London, and I remember the great social and political results to which the Corporation of London and its surrounding municipalities have contributed, I cannot help thinking of what was once said by a rival artist of a great portrait painter, but who was deficient in historical power; his rival described him as "a mechanic who was called an artist." In my humble opinion, it is not the function of a Conservative or a Conservative Government rudely to tamper with institutions through which the education, the intellect, and the wealth of the country find expression. But at the present moment we have several Bills before the House too much of that character; two Bills which deal in a somewhat arbitrary spirit with our two great national Universities. We have also a Bill before us to deprive the Justices of the Peace of the care of the prisons both in countries and boroughs. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think it consistent with their Conservatism, which, if it is worth anything, should preserve the elements which constitute the strength of our Constitution, not to sanction an interruption of the whole-

  1801
  some improvement, the steady progress of which we witness in London, for the sake of depriving the chief municipality of England of a charge it has so well fulfilled for centuries. Would it, I ask, please the noble Lord the Member for Haddington, in his Imperialistic temper, to deprive the visits of those foreign Potentates who are now from time to time received at the Mansion House of the splendour which accompanies those receptions? Or does the noble Lord wish to add to the burden of the Sovereign by depriving her of the assistance she derives from the Corporation of the City of London in their magnificent hospitality? Would the noble Lord deem it appropriate that some high official should be fitted out to undertake this task, or would he commit it to some nobleman? There are obvious objections to either idea. Let the House remember that mere wealth, without responsibility and authority, could not fit any man or set of men to discharge the functions of such a Corporation as that of the City of London. If mere wealth undertook to offer hospitality to such personages as the City of London receives, its doing so would at once be stamped as inappropriate and impudent. It is the usage of centuries which sanctions the hospitality which the City Corporation tenders through the Lord Mayor to the Sovereigns of Foreign States when they visit this country. I believe that the municipality over which the Lord Mayor presides ought not to be unduly extended beyond its present limits, because, among other reasons, the Lord Mayor might thus become too great a man for England.
  SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he rose with a deep sense of responsibility to discuss this subject, when he remembered that the health and happiness of nearly 4,000,000 people depended upon the good government of the Metropolis. He was rather surprised at the prominence given by the noble Lord to a dinner given by him as Chairman of the Board of Works, but he cordially endorsed the assertion made on that occasion by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that London was the best governed city in the world. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the works carried out within the last 20 years by the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works would vie with any works of an-
  1802
  cient or modern time. The noble Lord himself had expressed his approval of some of their efforts—such as the drainage works, the Thames Embankments, the widening of various streets, and the making of new thoroughfares where they were needed. Many hon. Members must recollect the state of the Thames one summer before the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted, when cartloads of chloride of lime and other disinfectants were thrown into the Thames. Now the sewage of London was carried so far away that it was impossible it could become offensive to the people of London. The noble Lord had referred to the death-rate, which had been reduced to 21 in the 1,000. There might be local considerations which made the mortality of other towns greater; but he belived that the death-rate in Manchester was 30 and in Liverpool 35. The noble Lord had also referred to the system of representation in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and said it ought to be direct. He had been a member of the Board of Works for 10 years, during six of which he had been Chairman, and he would assert that the system of indirect representation to the Metropolitan Board worked remarkably well. The members elected were the ablest and most prominent men in the different Vestries and District Boards, and they came to the Metropolitan Board of Works well acquainted with their work and with the wants of their localities. His noble Friend had referred to the hydrant question, which was now before the Committee upstairs on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. The reason why the Metropolitan Board had not adopted these hydrants was that they were not prepared to spend £1,000,000 in this way without satisfying themselves that the pipes were of sufficient magnitude and the pressure of water sufficiently great and constant to extinguish fires. These hydrants had, however, been placed in Northumberland Avenue and other new streets, and he trusted that in time they would be introduced into every suitable place. By the Building Act the construction of houses was placed under the regulations of the Metropolitan Board. After some experience of the working of this Act it was found that it contained many defects which it was desirable to amend. He had accordingly brought in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law,

  1803
  and although he failed to pass it, he trusted that he should before long be able to carry a measure which would improve the law on this subject. His noble Friend had talked of the zeal of the Metropolitan Board having outrun their discretion in the matter of the Gas Companies. The Bill brought in and read a second time had, however, already borne fruit. All the Gas Companies, with few exceptions, on the north side of the Thames had become amalgamated, and negotiations were going on for the amalgamation of the companies on the south side, who had accepted the conditions imposed by the Bill. He did not see how unity of administration or the amalgamation of the Vestries would prevent people being run over in the streets; and as his noble Friend had not given any figures to show how unity would be attended with economy it was impossible to attempt any reply to that part of his speech. He had seen the streets of Paris in a worse condition than those of London, and as to the sewers of Paris they were constructed upon different principles from those of London. Ours were designed to carry off only a limited quantity of effluent water, and the refuse of the streets was not permitted to be swept into them, but it was swept into those of Paris, and the solid matter was carried away in barges and deposited on the banks of the Seine to diminish the risk of inundation. He could not imagine it would be at all agreeable that the contents of the sewers of London should be used to embank the Thames above London. Late at night in the streets of Paris there was often a procession of carts of a most offensive character. If an agitation for the reform of the local government of London had been going on since 1837, if it had enlisted the sympathies of Mr. Mill and Mr. Buxton, and if, after several Bills had been unsuccessfully introduced, the matter could be carried no further than it was by the proposed Resolution, the result would appear to be that the inhabitants of London did not want a change, and in those circumstances it would seem to be better to leave things pretty much as they were, because they satisfied those who lived under the existing conditions. He did not deny the possibility of reforms of a moderate character; but he could not admit the necessity for the sweeping
  1804
  changes suggested. He must defend those who as vestrymen devoted their time to the public service; and, if in some instances the higher classes did not participate in the work of local management it was entirely their own fault. Any differences in the supply of gas or water depended upon the districts being supplied by one company or another, and not upon the districts being within or beyond municipal jurisdiction, and as to the relation of the Metropolitan Board to the Corporation, he might refer to their harmonious co-operation, on the gas question to show that the jealousies which once existed between them had entirely disappeared, and that they acted together for the public good. His noble Friend had alluded to the Press, and he quoted the observations of the leading journal with reference to his own Bill of last Session. He might also have quoted another celebrated newspaper—he meant The Saturday Review—only a fortnight ago, which was not quite so favourable in its comments. He, on the other hand, might quote the testimony of a leading journal comparing the state of London now with what it was 20 years ago, and showing the obligations under which it lay to the Metropolitan Board. But he did not think it necessary to do so. It was enough to show his noble Friend that the Press was not all on one side upon this question. His noble Friend said the Metropolitan Board were not equal to their work. He maintained that they had proved themselves to be so. It was not correct to say that the Metropolitan Board had not powers over the Vestries as regarded the making of sewers. They had powers over the Vestries in that matter. In case they wanted to make new sewers they must come to the Metropolitan Board for their sanction; and those sewers were always made in connection with the main drainage, which had been entirely confided to the care of the Metropolitan Board. He did not know that there were any other points in his noble Friend's speech which required an answer, and he had only now to thank the House for the kind hearing they had given him.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not agree with his noble Friend when he said that the municipality he described would have quite enough to do to prevent them engaging in any-

  1805
  thing political. Everyone who knew history knew that the City of London had exercised great political influence. That influence had always been exercised on the side of freedom and good government. It was a model for municipal freedom and good government; but when his noble Friend proposed that the police of the whole Metropolis should be under the Secretary of State, that the Chief of the municipality, the Lord Mayor, or other chief officer, should be appointed by the Crown, or with a veto in the Crown—the Recorder and the Common Serjeant being also appointed by the Crown—the municipality would be no municipality at all; it would have no municipal liberties; it would be merely a body subordinate to the Government of the day. It would be very much like the body which governed Paris. The Prefect of the Seine, when he visited London, was complimented as the head of a great and, perhaps, model municipality. But he was not the head of a municipality at all. He was appointed by the Crown. The Lord Mayor under the scheme of his noble Friend would be a Government officer, and instead of a great Corporation intimately connected with the history and liberties of England, a model of self-government, they would have a body under the Minister of the day. His noble Friend did not seem to have realized the immensity of his conception, a municipal body comprising a population of 4,000,000. With a population greater than that of Scotland, equal to that of Belgium, this Municipal Council would be a Parliament in itself; it would have a Minister, a Budget, and the organization which belonged to a kingdom. Such a thing was unexampled in history, and would be so unwieldy it would be impossible to manage it. Without the City of London, there was no doubt that the splendour of this country would be much diminished; because there was no other body which could properly entertain any Potentate whom it was desirable to conciliate, or adequately express the hospitable feelings of the country on important occasions. If those who wished to suppress the City of London would but look at the matter in that light they would see the absurdity of their attempt. His noble Friend seemed to forget that if he succeeded in carrying out his object he would destroy the historic
  1806
  identity of the Corporation and put in its place a body whose line of action no one could foresee. The new Corporation would probably be very different from the old; he was sure it would not fulfil so well its duties of hospitality and good government. No doubt it would fall under the influence of some democratic faction and become the arena of political contention. Involved in Party strife, it would be drawn away from its proper duties, and in all likelihood become an example to avoid instead of being a model of good government and municipal liberty.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he was anxious before any Member of the Government spoke on the Question to recall the House to what was really the question before it. Hon. Gentlemen naturally considered this matter to be simply a question as to the dignity of the Lord Mayor of London, but they should really remember the statistics of this subject. The inhabitants of municipal London, allowing for the increase that had taken place since the last Census, might possibly amount to some 80,000 persons, and its area one square mile and ten acres. The size of non-municipal London might pretty fairly be reckoned at 3,600,000, and its area at 75,000 acres; and the question was what was the right and proper thing to be done with those 3,600,000 who had no share in the government of London. The question was whether they were now governed in a manner satisfactory to themselves and in accordance with the lights we now possessed on this subject, or whether it was possible to devise something better for them. Putting aside the Corporation of the City of London, to which he wished no harm, let them look at this question as it would confront them and demand consideration if there were no such Corporations in existence. Hon. Members argued as if there was nothing in this country excepting the Corporation of the City of London, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and Vestries, and to forget that this larger portion of London was an exception to the rule which provides for every large town, and even for some very small ones, a particular kind of municipal government established after great deliberation in 1835. The establishment of this system of municipal government he regarded as a larger and more important step than the Reform Bill itself,

  1807
  and it had worked on the whole with great satisfaction, and great benefit to the people of this country. On what ground of reason or good sense should these 3,600,000 people inhabiting the principal city of the country be excepted from this otherwise general rule of municipal government, and left, so to speak, almost without any municipal government at all? That was the question to which he hoped any Member of the Government who replied would direct his attention, without being led aside from it by a fear of hurting the feelings of the Lord Mayor on the one side, or of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other who came forward and represented himself as something like a sovereign over those 3,600,000 who had no other shepherd than himself. The experience of such places as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and innumerable other places, had established certain rules and principles with regard to municipal government, which rules might be summed up in a single word—"consolidation." The great advantage of municipal government was that it enabled us to get rid of an infinity of small departments, which, being apportioned to look after some particularly small matters, were elected with little care and consideration, and consisted of inferior persons; and that there was established instead one large Board in the form of a municipal council, which undertook the charge of all these small matters, and being elected once for all, every year attracted attention, and was held as important enough to make persons take pains to get the best persons to sit upon it that could be found. No one could doubt that if the duties discharged by the different committees of a Corporation like that of Manchester, for instance, were divided between Boards, for each of which there was a separate election, they would have an inferior set of men to administer affairs than those who were annually elected to such a Corporation, and who, having those duties divided between them, were subject to be over-ruled by the general body if they did anything wrong. Applying the tests he had mentioned to the 3,600,000 persons who lived under the jurisdiction of Vestries, they would find that Vestries had comparatively small powers over small areas, that their election did not attract any consideration,
  1808
  and that it was not difficult for any fussy and incompetent person, who chose to take the trouble, to place himself in one of these bodies. From the very nature of the case, and the small extent of the area, they were precluded from taking a large and comprehensive view of anything which came before them. There was a constant system of doing and undoing. A road was laid down to be afterwards picked up. Each of these bodies must have a Staff of Assistants to do its work for it. Imagine the waste that went on in having 20 or 30 sets of persons to do the work, where, by having one body, the work would be devised at the fountain-head after the best consideration that could be given. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the vestrymen, but the Vestries were generally composed of small tradesmen, to whom money and time were of great importance, who had a narrow education, and who were not fitted to discharge duties of this kind. The affairs of the Metropolis had quite outgrown the system which, prevailed. It was absurd to call the Vestries municipal government; but he thought it was greatly to be wondered at that the system was not worse than it was. They were continually told of the direct election of the Vestries: but the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir James Hogg) and his colleagues were elected by Vestries who were appointed nobody knew how or when. To the Vestries elected as he had described were entrusted the municipal functions of the Metropolis. Now, if this was the right principle, why not apply it all over the United Kingdom? Why were not Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, and Liverpool governed in this manner? Why did little Vestries swarm in the Metropolis? In what respect were the people of the Metropolis inferior to the cities he had named that they should submit to this system of government, which was contrary to English notions and feelings? Why, were 3,600,000 people here to be made an exception to the whole kingdom? That was really the question, and it was a question of the utmost importance, demanding an answer different from any that had been given to it. London had a Thames Conservancy discharging a duty which would belong to the municipality, and a School Board, whose

  1809
  duties would fall on the municipality, and so on with the Boards for different purposes throughout London, all of which might be concentrated in one municipality with good effect. He had fairly described, he believed, the condition of the outside district of the Metropolis, and if the statement was anything like fair, they could not be surprised that the fruit was very much like the tree. The Board of Works had borrowed £15,000,000 and raised £5,000,000 by taxes, and it would be strange if, having £20,000,000, they did nothing with it; but they illustrated one thing clearly—and that was the source, the system, in which they had their being. He thought that the system under which they were elected was about as bad a form as could be devised by human ingenuity. Yet, in spite of these disadvantages, the Board was able to perform considerable public work and service. Nothing was more remarkable than the want of public spirit and of the power of defending themselves possessed by the 3,600,000 inhabitants of London. If there was any Bill affecting the Metropolis before a Committee of that House, and the City did not oppose, the rest of the Metropolis was absolutely helpless. They could not send Vestries; they could not send the Metropolitan Board; they were continually trampled on in the most ignominious manner because they had no organization by which to assert their rights. There was plenty of political life among them, but the absence of a municipality had produced its natural effect, just as the loss of an organ in the human body led to a corresponding want of energy and sensation; and now there was no body so small or petty which could not trample upon those 3,600,000 people—
  "Point but a rush against Othello's breast
  And he retires."
  Take the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was the present monarch of this part of Her Majesty's dominions, who told them he had settled the gas question. Well, there was not a town in England that would have submitted to be treated as London submitted to be treated on this gas question. Ever since he had been a householder in the Metropolis—now 25 years—he had found the quality of the gas year by year getting worse. That did not
  1810
  arise from anything in the nature or production of gas; but because the gas companies had more power in the House of Commons to carry their Bills than all the 3,600,000 inhabitants had, and that because they had no municipal organization to bring against any power. Nothing had struck him more when he had been in the country—at Glasgow and Sheffield, for instance—than the extraordinary beauty and brightness of the gas as compared with the darkness visible of the London gas. He contended that no people who had proper means of representation would have submitted so long to have been trampled upon by a gross monopoly as London had done in connection with her gas supply. Then take the case of water. What was the greatest insult which one human being could offer another? If one man compelled his neighbour to drink his sewage, the latter was put about as low as he could be put. Yet this was precisely the position of most of the inhabitants of London. He enjoyed the blessings of a water supply from the Chelsea Water Company, and could hardly take up a newspaper without reading about the large proportion of animal organisms in the water so supplied to him. This meant that all the towns on the banks of the Thames above the Metropolis were discharging their sewage into the river, and that the people in London were forced to drink the water so defiled. Did anybody believe that if the Metropolis had a proper municipal organization it would be subjected, he would not say to such an insult, but to such a danger and such a disgrace? Yet the people of the first city in the world were subjected to an insult which no decent master would offer to his slave. These were two instances of the want in London of that which all the rest of the large towns enjoyed—representation by a municipal council. The question was what remedy should be applied? It was clear that no case was made out for leaving these 3,600,000 people any longer to the tender mercies of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or of those of the Vestries. London was not less unanimous, not less wealthy than other cities. It was the fountain head of information, and when it asked to be placed on a level with other cities, it made at least a modest request. But then it was said—"Oh,

  1811
  London is too large for one municipality. We must split it up." Such a process would be a mere mockery, because the interest throughout the whole town was really one and indivisible. The experiment of allowing such a population to exist without a municipal centre was a most dangerous one. In quiet times, when the people were satisfied, it might do well enough; but if a time of popular tumult and of riots came, wasit not a fearful thing to reflect that here was a population equal to that of a moderate sized Kingdom, with no one to look to for direction and guidance in case of danger? He always felt the greatest apprehension whenever he heard of any great celebration which called the people of London into the streets; for the least accident, or panic, or difficulty, might cause the most dreadful evils, on a scale which could not be contemplated without alarm. The fact that people were at present quiet and well-behaved, was just the reason why precautions should be taken, and why London should now have what all other towns in the Kingdom enjoyed—some municipal form of government, and somebody to be their adviser in case of trouble and danger. This advantage would be entirely lost if the municipality were frittered away into a number of different districts. The interests of all being the same, this would be division merely for the sake of division. Nothing would result from that but jealousies and squabbles between these different municipalities, which would consequently be prevented, from adopting measures that would really tend to benefit the Metropolis. We ought to get the best class of men, who would devote their attention to the noble task of securing and regulating the daily life of so large a portion as 3,600,000 of the human race. Unless we were to confess that everything all over the country in the way of municipal organization was entirely wrong, such an organization as existed in Liverpool, Manchester, andother great towns, ought to be granted to the Metropolis. The case he had made out would not be consistent with the maintenance of the dynasty of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was not necessarily fatal to the continuance of the Corporation of the City of London. It would be for the Corporation to consider whether they would not act wisely
  1812
  in placing themselves at the head of this great movement, and in occupying the position which they ought to have occupied long ago, instead of confining their attention to a single square mile of ground. It was for the Corporation to consider whether it would not be most wise and dignified to assume this position which would be most worthy of their antecedents. They had done good service to the people in their struggles with the Crown, and they might now inaugurate the cause of the municipal government of the Metropolis. They might consider whether it was right that the large funds, public buildings and property which had been given them by different Sovereigns, partly under the idea that they were giving to the whole Metropolis, and partly because of the foolish dread they had of the increase of the Metropolis, that those large funds should be limited to one single square mile of land. That was for their consideration. He did not speak in antagonism to them; but if they chose to stand apart, it would be for Parliament to consider whether that circumstance should be allowed to stand in the way of granting what was right and just to the rest of the Metropolis. All he urged was that the adoption of this Motion did not pledge the House to any course which was hostile to the Corporation of the City of London; but the inhabitants of the rest of the Metropolis had a right to be placed in the same position with their fellow-subjects in all the other parts of the Kingdom, and to be enabled to manage their own affairs in the same way as they did.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The noble Lord has taken great interest in this subject, having studied it for some years, and has introduced to me the first Lord Mayor of the new Metropolis in the person of the Duke of Westminster. The first of the noble Lord's Resolutions may be taken in two senses. It may be taken in the sense in which ordinary Parliamentary Resolutions are taken—namely, that the matter is of such importance that the Government should at once take it up. In that sense I do not propose to deal with the first Resolution. But there is another sense in which it may be taken—namely, that Englishmen have a right to grumble over the inconveniences to which they are subjected, and in that sense I agree with the noble Lord. With

  1813
  respect to the second Resolution, that is a question which cannot be so easily disposed of as the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down imagines. The question is not whether things are as perfect as we should like them to be. I grant they are not. None of the arrangements with regard to gas, water, or sewage are perfect. But I think I have heard a great many grumble in the municipalities which have been so much praised. I have heard just the same grumbles about gas, and precisely the same about water, great grumbles about sewage, and still more about a matter which I am surprised has not been raised here—namely, about the rates. And when you talk of taking the water out of the hands of the great companies I must remind the House of two things. In the first place, in almost all the municipalities throughout the length and breadth of the land, the water is in the hands of the companies at the present moment; and in the second, while it is easy to say you will place the management in the hands of a body which will prevent all grumbling, you will have to pay the companies compensation. I will not enter into the question whether it would be wise that one body should have the control of the water supply. It is open to argument. But I say it is not fair to omit the consideration of cost. I would say the same with regard to gas. The gas supply is not, as a general rule, in the hands of corporations. Manchester has made a profit out of it; but in Liverpool and other places the supply is still in the hands of the companies. If at the outset the supply both of water and gas could have been arranged on a regular system, a great amount of money would have been saved and you would have much purer water and gas; and in the same way you would have got a better railway system. But, unfortunately, that is not the way in which we work things in England. We work rather in the dark at first, and then we say it is all wrong and try to put it right. I am far from saying it will not be right to put the water companies or the gas companies under one power; but you must not suppose that you can do this without great expense, which will eventually fall upon the rates; or that you can make such an arrangement at anything like such a cheap rate as if you
  1814
  had a tabula rasa, and were starting on the most economical principles. I am aware there is a great deal of grumbling about the streets, and I should be glad to see steps taken to put these matters on a more satisfactory footing. But do not suppose it is an easy thing to do; and, although we have heard this great corporation which is proposed praised up to the skies, do not be certain that when you have got it, you will be much nearer perfection than you are at present. The noble Lord quoted from rather a wonderful book which has been published about the administration of London, and amongst the divisions of the Metropolis he mentioned the postal districts. But they have nothing to do with the government of London, and if there is one thing centrally governed it is the Post Office. Therefore, I think it was unwise for the gentleman who wrote the book to mention that as a matter for re-consideration. With regard to the police, that is centrally administered, and I believe the police, as a whole, is satisfactorily managed, and will bear comparison with that of any other municipality in England or Wales. I think I should not be justified at this time of night in going further into details. As to the question of grumbling, I am aware there are reasons for grumbling, and I should be glad to do all in my power to see them removed, but that is another question. In the Motion of the noble Lord you cannot distinguish the grumble from the remedy; and I apprehend that his first Resolution is simply the foreground upon which he wants to take his stand in order to obtain that which he puts in the second place—namely, the formation of one great central authority for the whole of the Metropolis. As the noble Lord brought in a Bill last Session for that purpose, we may take it that it is really the foundation of the whole matter which we have to consider, whether it is wise that there should be one great central authority for the whole of London. Now, upon that there is a great deal more to be said than has been suggested either by the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was to become of the 3,600,000 people who could not help themselves, and why were they not put on the same level as the population of our other great towns?

  1815
  I only want to throw out suggestions; but I would put it to the House that when municipal government is proposed the first question which arises is—Have you a municipality to govern? I do not think we ought rashly to jump to the conclusion that these 3,600,000 people form practically a municipality. London has been well said to be not a town, but a province covered with houses. You cannot compare it with any other city in England or abroad. There is not the same community of interest about it which there is in local municipalities. The people in the East and the people in the West are two different sets, and the people in the North are in like manner different from the people in the South. They have different interests and habits, and do not form one body as in Liverpool or Manchester. In a central authority you must have intimate local knowledge of the interests whom that authority is to represent and govern. If you had one central authority here, and divided London into wards, do you think you would get the same class of people to carry on the municipal government that they have in the other municipal bodies in the kingdom? In such places as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester the aldermen and councilmen are generally men born and bred in the particular locality in which they dwell, and who, though elected for particular wards, know the circumstances of the whole town. Would that be the case in London? It would be extremely difficult to get persons with local knowledge of the whole of the 3,600,000 inhabitants of the Metropolis. This question is not considered now for the first time. We have had a great many schemes brought forward. In the first place, we had the scheme of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Vestries were to be made; there were to be no municipal boroughs, but the Metropolitan Board of Works was to be the supreme authority. That scheme the City naturally would not accept. Then there was what was called Lord Fortescue's scheme, according to which there were to be various bodies which were to undertake different duties—one that of lighting, another the water supply, and so on. There was also the scheme of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), which, at all events, had one
  1816
  great merit—that of simplicity; but if it had been carried out I do not know what would have become of the City. Then there is the plan of a grand municipal council with subordinate bodies scattered all over London, but to be gathered together now and then. These schemes have been brought forward at various times, and now we have the scheme of the noble Lord. The House should consider practically whether that scheme would work in the case of a population unlike that of other large towns, and without the same knowledge which other populations possess of the municipalities in which they dwell. I would suggest to the House whether in London these two great principles are not wanting—unity of interests and absence of the needful amount of local knowledge. The question is, whether you would not practically destroy the Corporation of the City of London by such a scheme as this. Would the Corporation of the City of London preserve its character if this scheme were carried out? In the local municipalities of England and Wales one thing is observable, that they are becoming more political, and it is unfortunate that municipal elections should be treated politically. That does not exist in the City of London at present. I do not know anything which more detracts from the advantage of municipal government than associating it with politics, and before we make any change in the government of London we must take care that we do not fall into the error of making it political. The City of London possesses some of the most ancient charters and privileges possessed by any body in the kingdom. You cannot suppose that the City of London is going to surrender those charters, and deprive itself of these privileges, but you cannot suppose that you can extend all those rights the City possesses under charters to a larger area. The noble Lord asks what the Government means to do in this matter. I fear the only answer I can give him is, that the Government have not the intention of following the example of a great many of their Predecessors, and of bringing in a Bill and then letting it drop. Certainly they would not follow the example of their Predecessors in that respect. If Her Majesty's Government ever thought this question

  1817
  ought to be taken up, they would bring in a Bill and endeavour to carry it. The noble Lord referred to the Report of the Commission of 1837. Many other Committees and Commissions have sat since then, and I am surprised that neither the noble Lord nor the right hon. Gentleman have referred more to them. Before the Metropolitan Board was constituted a Commission sat which was composed of men of great eminence—Sir John Patteson, Mr. Labouchere (afterwards Lord Taunton), Mr. Dudley Baxter, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis. They reported that a change of this magnitude would not only alter the whole character of the City Corporation, but defeat the main purpose of municipal institutions. London was, in fact, a province covered with houses, the persons living at its opposite extremities had few interests in common, and minute local knowledge and community of interests would be wanting if the whole of London was placed under a municipal government. This, added the Commissioners, led them to abstain from recommending that the whole of London should be placed under one municipal body without having regard to other considerations, and if any attempts were made to give such an organization at the expense of the City the utility of the present Corporation would be destroyed. This question was considered again in 1861 and 1867, but without practical result. I do not say that the House is to be bound by the Resolutions or Reports of Committees or Commissions; but I do say that it behoves the House earnestly to consider what has been put forward by these bodies, which have carefully and solemnly weighed the matter. Very important evidence was recently given against the plan proposed by the noble Lord. It requires something more than a discussion of three or four hours before we can assent to a measure which would revolutionize the condition of a population approaching 4,000,000—a population larger than that of Scotland and growing near to that of Ireland. The great point to be considered is this—How can you induce the best men in a place to take part in the government of the municipality? I do not think you now get the best men in your Vestries. These are questions well worth discussing. The House ought to consider
  1818
  what improvements can be made in the existing system, and it should not come hastily to a conclusion on a question like that before us to-night, but pause with grave consideration before assenting to any such changes as are here suggested
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had very skilfully divided his subject into two parts. That a reform in the government of the Metropolis was needed, few, he thought, would deny. The Metropolis was vestry-ridden. The City, however, was not. It had municipal institutions: he wished to see these municipal institutions extended to the Metropolis, but not in the way which the noble Lord proposed in his second Resolution. He wished to see a distinct municipality established for each of the Parliamentary cities and boroughs of the Metropolis. Hitherto, when Parliamentary and municipal government had existed side by side, they had been as nearly as possible co-extensive, and the boundaries conterminous. But the noble Lord proposed to group, for municipal purposes, towns which were separated for Parliamentary purposes. What constituted the peculiar advantage of preserving our present borough system? Why, that it perpetuated the esprit de corps of the inhabitants of the particular locality. They were united in sympathy, and acted as one individual for their common interests. The vestries of the Metropolis very faintly reflected this esprit de corps in the localities which they represented. But destroy the vestries, and create instead one vast municipality for the Metropolis, and you destroyed this esprit de corps altogether. In his belief, it was their duty, in the best interests of the country, to deepen that feeling—they should try to infuse into each Metropolitan constituency a sense of its individuality, of its interests quâ constituency, municipally as well as Parliamentarily. That could only be done by calling into existence as many municipalities as there were Parliamentary constituencies in the Metropolis. Let them substitute for each vestry a town council. They would thus extend the benefits of municipal self-government throughout the Metropolis, without in the slightest degree interfering with the time-honoured constitution of the Corporation of the City of London.
  LORD ELCHOexpressed himself satisfied with the admissions made by the Home Secretary and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.

  RESOLUTIONS. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate thereupon [30th May].
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, it was of great importance that the Question should be decided whether this Order was to be regarded as permanent during the present Parliament, or as existing only during the Session in which it was passed. He thought it certainly ought to be decided at an early day, and ought not to be adjourned to a later day than to-morrow.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Tuesday next."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the House was kept up to a very late hour this morning discussing his Motion, and he therefore begged to move that this House do now adjourn.
  SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: seconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOW STREET POLICE COURT (SITE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill to authorise the acquisition of a site in Bow Street for the erection of a new Police Court and Police Station and Offices, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William HenRy Smith and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Coleraine, &c.)* (107); Local Government Provisional Orders, Aberavon, &c. (No. 7)* (108); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Wemyss)* (109); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chelmsford, &c.)* (110); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.)* (111); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Paisley)* (112); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Perth)* (113); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Tolleshunt Major)* (114), and referred to the Examiners.
Third Reading—Trade Union Act (1871) Amendment* (98); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (86); Salmon Fisheries* (72), and passed.
Their Lordships met;—

PROVISIONAL ORDERS (IRELAND) CONFIRMATION (COLERAINE, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to waterworks in the Towns of Coleraine, Dungannon, Keady, Portrush, and Waterford—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 107.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CHELMSFORD, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (No. 110.)
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Districts of Chelmsford and Merthyr Tydvil and the Borough of Peterborough (two): And

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BIRMINGHAM, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (No. 111.)
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Birmingham, the Rural Sanitary District of the Chesterfield Union, the Districts of Dawlish and Keswick, the Rural Sanitary District of the Leek Union, the Borough of Maidstone, the Districts of Mistley, Moss Side, and Southend, the Rural Sanitary District of the Tadcaster Union, and the Districts of Wallasey and Weston-super-Mare:
Were presented by The Earl of Jersey; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PAISLEY) BILL [H.L.] (no. 112.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, relating to the Burgh of Paisley: And

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PERTH) BILL [H.L.] (No. 113.)
A Bill to confim a Provisional Order under the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, relating to the Burgh of Perth:
Were presented by The Lord Steward; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TOLLESHUNT MAJOR) 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 Tolleshunt Major, in the county of Essex, to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The Earl of Derby; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 114.)
And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.