Sitting of 23 May 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Ordered—Local Government Provisional Orders, Aberavon, &c. (No. 7)*; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Wemyss)*.
COMMITTEES.
Ordered, That Committees shall not sit upon Thursday, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION—OFFICERS OF THE "PANDORA."—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Naval Officers who are about to sail in the "Pandora" with Captain Allan Young, will be allowed to count the time they are afloat?
MR. HUNT: Under the peculiar circumstances of the case they will be allowed to count such time; and they will be placed on the books of one of Her Majesty's ships and be entitled to full pay.

GAS COMPANIES ACT—GAS REFEREES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps were taken by the Board of Trade when they were informed that Mr. R. H. Patterson, one of the gas referees appointed by them under the Act of 1868, had taken out a patent for improvements in the purification of coal gas on the 9th of March 1872, while he held the office of a gas referee; if he would ex-

  1111
  plain to the House for what reasons Messrs. Patterson and Peirce, two of the referees, were superseded in their office in August 1872, and Dr. Tyndall and Mr. A. G. Vernon Harcourt appointed in their places, the said office of gas referee not being abolished or reconstructed in any way; the powers remaining the same as heretofore, but the emolument only being diminished; and, whether he is aware that in the recent action "Patterson v. The Gaslight and Coke Company," the Lords Justices of Appeal condemned in strong terms the withholding of the Gas Referees' Report, dated 31st January 1872, but which the Board of Trade did not receive till the 26th March 1872, between which dates Mr. R. H. Patterson obtained his patent of the 9th March 1872, for the system of purification recommended and suggested in that report and, as stated in evidence, with the sanction and approval of the other two referees; and, if so, what steps he has taken to ascertain the truth of this statement?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The Board of Trade first saw in The Journal of Gaslighting of March 26, 1872, notice of a patent taken out by Mr. Patterson, one of the Gas Referees. On the 23rd of April the Board wrote to Mr. Patterson inquiring whether he was the person referred to in the notice, and, if so, what was the nature of his patent. Mr. Patterson explained that it was not his intention to make any substantial charge for his patent to the companies with which he was officially concerned. The Board of Trade said it was questionable whether a public officer ought to make use of knowledge and experience acquired by him in the discharge of his public duties to establish a claim to a patent. When the patent, if successful, was one which could or might be purchased by manufacturers whom it was the duty of the officer to control, to be used by them for the purposes of a process which he was appointed to regulate, there could be no doubt that the holding of such a patent by such an officer was inconsistent with his public duties. Messrs. Patterson and Peirce were informed on the 23rd of April, 1872, that they would not be re-appointed after the expiration of their annual appointment, in August, 1872; but the circumstances are too
  1112
  long to be stated in answer to a Question. I am aware of the language of the Lords Justices of Appeal in the recent case of "Patterson v. the Gas light and Coke Company," but as the referees referred to ceased to be the servants of the Board of Trade in 1872, I do not find it necessary to take any further steps in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will move for the Correspondence on this subject, it shall be laid on the Table.

EGYPT—BOARD OF FINANCE—MR. RIVERS WILSON.—QUESTION.
MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the leave of absence given to Mr. Rivers Wilson on leaving this Country expires; whether any extension thereof has been asked for and whether Her Majesty's Government, as at present advised, see any reason for entertaining such request, if made or about to be made, with the view of enabling Mr. Rivers Wilson to continue his services to the Khedive; and, if he can now state when he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the promised additional Correspondence relating to Egypt?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The leave of absence given to Mr. Rivers Wilson was not limited to any particular date, but the time during which he was expected to be absent is now about expiring. A few days ago we received a telegraphic communication from Mr. Rivers Wilson to the effect that the Khedive had asked him whether he would accept an appointment in connection with the Egyptian financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson intimated that he would not be unwilling to accept such an appointment for a period of, say, a year, if he could have an extension of leave for that purpose. To that a reply was given that Her Majesty's Government considered that it would be inconvenient that Mr. Wilson should take any service or should remain in Egypt unless he entirely disconnected himself from the Civil Service of this country. I therefore presume Mr. Rivers Wilson will not accept that appointment, although we have not received any positive communication from him since that intimation was given. I think we shall be able in a very few days to lay the Correspondence upon the Table.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE "OCTAVIA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Cubans who were taken out of the "Octavia," and detained at Porto Rico, have been released; if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, any steps to procure their release, seeing that the "Octavia" was a British vessel, and that at the time she was seized by a Spanish vessel of war she was on the high seas, and that the Cubans, in common with all on board, were under the protection of the British flag?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, the Cubans had not been released; but Her Majesty's Government had received an assurance from the Spanish Government that nothing would be done to them or to the vessel until an arrangement had been come to between the two Governments. An instruction to Mr. Layard on the subject was being drawn up.

UNITED STATES—THE WTNSLOW EXTRADITION CASE.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Home Secretary, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the final release of the prisoner Winslow, he will afford this House an opportunity of considering the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States, relating to his extradition?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the prisoner Winslow had been further remanded on the application of the Government until the 31st instant pending further communications between the two Governments. As a rule, it was not the practice—and it would be generally inconvenient—to lay Papers upon the Table before the Correspondence had been concluded; but as in this case a partial publication had been made at Washington, the Government would lay the Papers on the Table as far as they had gone.

TURKEY—MURDER OF THE CONSULS AT SALONICA.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
1114
Whether Her Majesty's Consul at Salonica has made any report on the circumstances which led to and accompanied the recent massacre at Salonica; and, whether he has any objection to state its purport?
MR. BOURKE: Some Papers have been received within the last few days. They relate to the whole subject, and it would be inconvenient to lay a part of the Correspondence on the Table before the rest. In answer to the first Question, I have to state that Mr. Consul Blunt, the Consul at Salonica, has made a Report to Her Majesty's Government upon the lamentable occurrence which took place there the other day, and that the purport of that Report is to this effect: A Bulgarian girl of a village in the district of Salonica, having embraced Mahomedanism, had to come to Salonica to make before the Grand Council a declaration to that effect, a formality required by the local law in regard to Mahomedan converts. On her arrival at the railway station, some Greeks, who, it appears, expected her, seized her and tore off her ferijah and yashmalk. The Turks who accompanied her interfered, a scuffle ensued, and the police on duty at the station separated the disputants, and succeeded in taking charge of her. While they were conducting the girl to the Konak they were assailed by a crowd of Greeks, who got possession of her and put her in the carriage of the American Vice Consul, which was driving by at the time, and she was conveyed to the American Consulate. The next day, about 11 a.m., some Mahomedans called on the Pasha and insisted that the girl should be brought to the Konak. The Pasha thereupon sent a message to the American Consulate requiring the immediate presence of the girl at the Grand Council. In the absence of the American Vice Consul, his brother is stated to have declared to the bearer of the Pasha's message that the girl had left the Consulate. The Turks became impatient at the non-appearance of the girl, and warned the Pasha that if he had not the power to deliver her from the Franks they would attack the Amecan Consulate, and from the Konak they proceeded to a mosque in the vicinity where other Mahomedans had assembled. About this time M. Moulin, the French Consul, and Mr. Henry Abbott, the German Consul, went in the vicinity

1115
of the mosque, where they were surrounded by the Mahomedans and forced to enter. The mob became furious, notice was sent to the Pasha, who proceeded to the spot with some of the principal Turks, some Beys, and a few officers of police. The crowd refused to disperse. The Consuls promised to have the girl brought to the Konak, and wrote to the brother of the German Consul to give her up. On learning the danger his colleagues were in, Consul Blunt started at once for the Konak; he was met by several unarmed Turks, with some of whom he endeavoured to get to the mosque. The French Chancellor begged him not to try, as the crowd would let no European approach. At the earnest request of the French Consular Cavass and several Turks, who represented the state of affairs as most critical, he ran to the Konak and wrote a hurried note to the American Consulate, insisting that the girl should be given up. The girl was not there, but she was discovered in the house of M. Avyerinos and given up to the British Consular Cavass, who took her at once to the Konak, but too late to save the French and German Consuls, for they were already murdered. These were the facts of the case. The whole of the Papers bearing on the subject would be laid on the Table of the House.

CIVIL SERVICE INQUIRY COMMISSION—CUSTOMS OUT-DOOR DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOORDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any scheme, based upon the Third Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, has yet been decided on with regard to the Customs Out-Door Department?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that no scheme based upon the Report referred to had yet been decided upon, but the whole subject was under consideration.

CRIMINAL LAW—MAD DOGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a judgment given by Mr. Turner in the County
  1116
  Court, in which he held that no person was justified in shooting a dog whether mad or not, but that it was the duty of the police to capture the mad dog and bring it before two magistrates, and who, if they were satisfied the dog was rabid, would give an order for its destruction?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that his attention had been called to this subject by the Question of the hon. Member, and he could only hope that the law was not in such a state as it was represented to be by the learned Judge; but that he could not answer for. If the law were such as it was stated to be, he should be exceedingly sorry for the police; it would be cruelty to keep the dogs in misery, and he should not like to be the magistrate before whom they were brought. For his own part, he might say that he should give no directions to the Metropolitan Police to act in accordance with the decision referred to.

IRELAND—KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MELDONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any arrangement has been entered into between the Kingstown Commissioners and the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour as to the purchase of ground belonging to the Harbour Commissioners; and, if so, the extent and situation of such ground; and, whether, if the plot of ground now used by the Harbour Commissioners is the land proposed to be sold, any, and if so what, arrangements have been made to provide storage and yard accommodation for the Harbour Commissioners?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the plot of ground to be leased by the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour to the Commissioners of Kingstown Township for the Kingstown Town hall measures about 130 feet by 90 feet. It lies in the centre corner of the Harbour Commissioners' yard. It was occupied by the contractor as storage ground, stables, and offices, but since the completion of the works, now about 15 years since, it has been practically unoccupied and lying waste. There is no reasonable prospect of its being required for any future purpose connected with the harbour.

THE SLAVE TRADE—TREATY WITH THE SULTAN OF ZANZIBAR.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as stated in the newspapers of yesterday, that a Treaty has been concluded with the Sultan of Zanzibar for the suppression of the Slave Trade within the Sultan's dominions; and if he can give the House any further information on the subject?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that within the last day or two the following telegram had been received at the Foreign Office from the Resident at Aden, dated May 14—
  "From Zanzibar Consulate, dated May 6.—Have negotiated with Sultan. Abolition of all slave routes by land, and no caravan to fit out for purchase of slaves or slave hunting in the interior of Africa. All slaves coining to coast to be seized and confiscated, and all land caravans seized. Dealers to be imprisoned."

REGISTRY OF DEEDS (DUBLIN).

  QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If any new circumstances have occurred since the Treasury Minute of June 1874 was sanctioned by this House to occasion the suspension of the promotions in the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, in case of vacancies recently occurring, and when will effect be given to the recommendations of the head of that department consequent thereon?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Promotions in the Registry of Deeds (Ireland) have been suspended because, after an inquiry, it has been found desirable to propose an entirely new system of keeping the Registers, for which an Act of Parliament is necessary. A Bill will be introduced in due course.

CITY OF LONDON COMPANIES.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  MR. JAMES,in rising to call attention to the present position of the Eighty-nine Companies mentioned in the Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Municipal Corporations in England and Wales 1837; and to move an Address for a Return setting forth in detail a Statement of the real and personal property vested in such
  1118
  Companies respectively; also a detailed Statement of the charities payable by such Companies and of the income derived from all sources; and a Statement of expenditure and receipts during the last three years preceding the 1st day of January 1875, said: Mr. Speaker—I am not unaware of the magnitude of this subject, and of the many interests affected by it. Since this Notice of Motion of mine has been placed on the Paper representations have been made to me from sources of various sorts that the influence, power, and wealth of the opposing bodies would be so great that for any private Member to attempt to deal with it would be a Quixotic attempt. Of the power and influence of those forces there is no reason whatever to doubt; but I believe that as the information for which I am about to ask is founded on what is reasonable, equitable, and just, it is what, if not the present, at least some future Government, at no very distant date, will consider it their duty to grant. I regret that very little Parliamentary evidence exists upon which it is possible for me to establish this case, and while I shall have to avail myself, to a certain extent, of such information as is within any private Member's reach, I hope I shall not state anything inaccurate, misleading, or contrary to the fact. These Companies form an integral part of the Corporation of the City of London itself, and that they are themselves municipal Corporations in the strictest sense, I hope to be able to show from high authority stated in this House. For many years, as everyone is aware, the condition of the Corporation of the City of London has remained unaltered and unchanged, and it has always appeared to me that it is not a little singular and strange that this great Corporation which has taken an honourable part in many various and different reforms which we have witnessed during the last 25 or 30 years, as far as itself is concerned, has shown such disinclination to depart from ancient usages and forms, and has hence become more narrow and exclusive as the metropolitan area has spread. It is sometimes alleged that the reason why the City has always brought such fierce resistance to bear against the various proposals made at different times to bring into one central area the different jurisdictions and local authorities which

  1119
  London at present contains, is that the trustees of the ancient Guilds, to which I am about to call attention, are perfectly well aware that by such a change they will be brought much more closely under the scrutiny of the public eye, and that their funds would be devoted to purposes of a much more catholic and useful kind than they at present profess to have. Although, sooner or later, this question of the municipal reform of London must receive the attention which the subject deserves, I see no reason why the citizens of London, and I may add the people outside—because I do not think this is a parochial question in any sense of the word—should await that change in asking for full information on the subject of the property which these bodies have under their charge. I have been told that this attempt of mine is one of an inquisitorial and unnecessary kind—that it is an attack on private funds—that if the Government granted my demand deprivation and confiscation of property might ensue. An unreasonable comparison has been drawn between these bodies and joint stock companies, private firms, and clubs. I must ask, do clubs elect municipal officers? Do joint stock companies hold land in mortmain, and exercise large trading privileges under Royal and other charters? Do private firms in that capacity exercise Parliamentary franchises? I must enter my humble protest against the idea that these Companies are private bodies, and I think the idea deserves a protest, and has every right to be condemned, that when during the last 25 or 30 years we have instituted inquiries into municipal and ecclesiastical corporations of all kinds, into our Universities and endowed schools, that when not two Sessions ago an inquiry was instituted in this House even in regard to monastic and conventual institutions, so far as their tenure of property inland is concerned, these Companies should remain isolated in their position, should remain entirely uncontrolled, while their duties are so imperfectly discharged, and that a complete ignorance with reference to their property should be obstinately and persistently maintained. It is no exaggeration to say that in consequence of the fierce resistance, I might almost say resistance to the death, on the part of the Civic authorities to disclose in the very
  1120
  smallest degree any information with respect to their property and funds, an idea prevails generally out-of-doors, and is increasing by degrees, that their revenues are applied to purposes very different from those to which they were originally intended to be used, that the charities are very often frittered away and given to those by whom they are least deserved, and that nothing is done to promote the special industries and trades upon which their success and reputation ought in a great measure to depend. There may be those who think this is a question undesirable to stir tip, and the maxim Quieta non movere may be very well in many respects; but I, however, maintain that a strong public opinion on this subject already exists. There have been speeches made on many occasions, and frequent articles on the subject have appeared in the daily and weekly metropolitan Press. Perhaps in some of these words and denunciations have been expressed in terms with which I have no sympathy, and which I do not fail to deprecate. But, at all events, they show there is a strong opinion on this subject. Speaking two or three years ago at the Birkbeck Literary and Scientific Institution, Sir John Bennett, who is a Citizen and ex-Sheriff of the City of London, and also a Spectacle Maker, said—
  "That while they were strong in the City in respect to technical education, because of the Guilds founded for that purpose, yet in many essential respects these Guilds had not fulfilled their duties; a little gentle persuasion would remedy this, because the Guilds had loads of money, and, like the fly in the treacle pot, could not move for wealth."
  I read the other day an article by Mr. Philips—well qualified to speak with authority on these matters—which appeared in The Gentleman's Magazine. He said they were so glutted with money that they did not know what to do with it. It was true that they feasted and feasted and built gorgeous halls. It was difficult, however, to say that they did much more. True it was that many of them feasted under powers conferred in them by having charters, and it was true also that in dealing out their charities they were narrowly watched by the Charity Commissioners. It was also true, however, from the results of recent litigation, that some of them were not above pocketing as their own private property money

  1121
  which was intrusted to them for the relief of the poor and the infirm. Charity exhausted very little of their revenues; and what was done with the surplus the members of the respective Courts only knew. A book has been lately written on Municipal London, by Mr. Firth, which contains a series of important charges which I think it is right the several authorities should have the earliest opportunity of being able publicly to refute, because while uncontradicted they must raise in the public mind an impression of the existence of a great deal of unpleasant truth.
  In the absence of information on this subject, it is difficult to know in the first instance where to turn, so little is known, and so much has been concealed. The Report of the Commission was made in 1837, and a Return in 1868 was moved for by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) with reference to the Charities, but no Parliamentary evidence has been brought to light to show that the corporate property is rightly administered or the funds well spent. Before I proceed further, I should like to point out what connection between the Companies and the City precisely exists. I have said they are municipal corporations in the strictest sense. The Parliamentary and municipal franchise in the City is vested in the Livery, in which no person can have a right to vote except by being a member of a Company. By them are elected the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, the City Chamberlain, the Sheriffs, the City Auditors, the Bridge House Estate Trustees. They also possess the unique political right of electing the Members of Parliament who represent the City in this House, so long as they have the residential qualification. This is a power which is liable to very great abuse, and from the Return which I moved for a few days since, I hope when it is brought up we shall see how many persons have by purchase obtained their political rights. As far as the status of these municipal corporations is concerned, I will quote from what took place here 40 years since, when this question was last brought before the House. It was at a time when the Companies were under the investigation of the Municipal Commissioners, and Mr. Attwood, who was himself Master of the Merchant Taylor's
  1122
  Company, rose in the House to move that the Petition which had been presented to the Committee on Municipal Corporations should be discharged in consequence of the grave charges which it contained against the Merchant Taylor's Company. Speaking on that occasion Lord Althorp, the Minister of the day, said—
  "With respect to the view the hon. Member took of the Order to refer the Petition under debate to the Committee on Municipal Corporations, he thought that the hon. Member was not exactly correct. The Committee was to inquire into the defects of the Corporations of England and Wales, and to report thereon. It was to look into and to ascertain those defects, and in order to do so, every Company, and (to use the expression) every subordinate Company connected, as they must be, with Municipal Corporations, should come under the cognizance of the Committee. With respect to the question whether a trading Company was to be considered as connected with the constitution of a Corporation, he thought that it certainly was."—[3 Hansard, xv. 1119.]
  Summing up the debate the Attorney General of that day said—
  "One benefit of the present discussion was, they were all at length agreed that, if not now, some distinct inquiry must speedily be made into the state of these trading Corporations, seeing that some of the functions exercised by them were clearly Municipal functions, and therefore make them Municipal Corporations."—[Ibid, 1124.]
  As far, however, as they and the City have been concerned in recent years, their connection has been kept as much, as possible in the background, as the best means of resisting projected reforms.
  I should like to say a few words on the origin of these ancient Guilds and the terms which their charters contain. They must be considered the legitimate representatives of the early Anglo Saxon and Plantagenet Guilds. The Guild in the first instance seems to have been a sort of territorial division somewhat analogous to our modern ward. Gradually they assumed positions connected with special trades. In the days of the Plantagenets, the power and influence possessed by them was so great that it was a question whether they should not be entirely suppressed. It may be said that municipal government and these mercantile communities and privileges grew up side by side, their object chiefly being the preservation of existing trade monopolies and the crea-

  1123
  tion of new ones, the promotion, as far as possible, of what I may call good and sound commercial morality amongst all persons with whom the trade was identified, and so far as the City of London was concerned the wealth, power, and influence of that City and its surrounding areas. Gradually a large number of these Guilds became incorporated, and about the time of Edward III. and Richard II. in greatest numbers. Nothing could be more simple than the way in which they originated. Take the instance of "the Grocers." They were not then called "grocers" but "pepperers," because pepper was one of the chief commodities they dealt with. It is related that 22 persons carrying on the trade of pepperers met at St. Mary Axe, and they determined to form a Guild. They assembled, dined together—each of them paid 1d. as a contribution for a priest to pray for the brotherhood and of all Christian people, and thus the Guild was established by feasting and praying. Formerly many of the Grocers were very great and distinguished persons. Sir John Philpot was one of the earliest members of the Grocer's Company, and he is described by Fuller as—
  "the brave merchant who in 1378 fitted out a fleet at his own expense to put down piracy amongst the Scotch,"
  and who for that and among other services was described as—
  "the scourge of the Scots, the fright of the French, the delight of the Commons, the darling of the Merchants, and the hatred of some noble Lords."
  He may be taken as a good illustration of the character and influence of a London Grocer in Plantagenet times. In the days of the Stuarts Sir Thomas Middleton, one of the principal founders of the East India Company, was a leading Grocer, and a typical instance of a member of that body. These persons had all the interests of their trade thoroughly at heart, and when they died there was a priest to pray for the repose of their souls. Gradually they adopted a distinctive dress to show their power, influence, and wealth; it is supposed that thus the term "Livery" first originated, and although in the present day the wearing of particular dresses to denote a particular profession or business would be resented, yet there
  1124
  is endless information in books and volumes written on the pageant and processions on different occasions in which these gorgeous dresses were made use of, and more particularly on the occasions when the Companies with the Lord Mayor went in procession from Westminster to Guildhall, the abandonment of which custom is perhaps to be regretted. No change whatever has ever taken place in the manner in which the members of these different Companies have been admitted. There were three modes of admission—by patrimony, by purchase, and by servitude. I think I am correct in saying that servitude has fallen almost wholly into disuse, so far at least as it has any practical effect. I am unable to cite any particular case in which parents or guardians have apprenticed a child to a particular trade in any one of these Companies, in order that he might have the particular education it would be natural they should wish him to have:—admission by patrimony is by right of birth, and it is stated that sometimes children are admitted as early as five or six, in order that they may derive substantial benefit in their early youth. Purchase is a privilege obtainable on the payment of certain fees, varying from two to three guineas, to as much, in some cases, as £300 or £400. I am told that no Ironmonger, bonâ fide—unless he applied for a mandamus, which possibly might succeed—could join the Ironmongers' Company, without paying a sum that would amount to £200. However this may be, it is seldom any of the persons belonging to these Companies are often connected with the trade with which they were originally identified. Many of the members have no City residences, they live in the provinces, and the work of making craftsmen, for promoting which some of them were originated, seems almost wholly to have been neglected. In addition to this, purchase is a violation of municipal rights. It has been decided repeatedly that a person obtaining the freedom of a Corporation, not otherwise entitled to it, by the payment of a sum of money renders such purchase void as being an essential violation of the bye-laws of such Corporation. Much more might it be affirmed—that the system may be held bad practised by many of these bodies established for so important a purpose as the protection of trade, by

  1125
  which the freedom is sold to persons wholly unconnected with the trade they profess to represent. It may be also well to remark that in the Plantagenet and early times no person was admitted to any Company except that Company whose trade he intended to practise; but now the fact, as the Commissioners of 1837 reported, that admission may be obtained to any Company seems conclusive against the supposition that anything in the preliminary proceedings of a Company tends to secure that the person admitted will obtain a knowledge of the trade which the Company professes to represent. As the forms of admission still remain the same, so it is also with the system of government. It appears to have undergone no change whatever, or, at all events, a very slight change. There have been Masters, a Court of Assistants, and Wardens, the chief of whose duties appears to be the management of their gigantic properties. The larger the Company, the greater is the mystery with which it is managed. It is sometimes said that if a person is troublesome in connection with the Livery the way in which he is kept quiet may be well imagined. There are no properly appointed auditors; no balance sheets are presented to the Company's members; few of them have any properly constituted Courts. They are nearly all self-elected. If admission is by seniority, there is always the ballot box by which the electors are protected. There is no guarantee that leases may not be given at nominal rent to the various members or Court officials, or that instead of the funds benefiting the Company they are chiefly utilized in the interests of the relations of those by whom the business of the Court is managed. After members are entered, they have certain privileges. Sometimes, according to the Report of the Commissioners, they have the right of enjoying pensions—a system, as the Commissioners reported, open to the greatest possible objections—by which pecuniary advantages are attached to those who discharge the duties of Trustees, which should never be annexed to such obligations. There is little doubt that the members of these Courts receive frequent opportunities of attending and inviting their friends to sumptuous dinners; they receive almost sinecure salaries for discharging
  1126
  not very onerous duties; they may be paid for attending sub-committee meetings. They are able to confer gratuitous education on their children and relations, and for their poorer connections they have alms, doles, and charities. Notwithstanding all these privileges, few maintain their duties: they in no way keep up the purposes for which they were originally organized.
  At first they appear to have acted as a sort of constant inspectors of adulterated articles. I have spoken of the Grocers, whose object was to render good and sound every article which the members, of the trade dealt with. In 1456 one John Ashfield was fined 6s. 8d. by the Grocers because he had mixed "untrue cinnamon, pepper, and ginger;" but now, in 1876, a grocer may mix iron filings with his tea and sand his sugar, supply any amount of adulterated food, perfectly free from the danger of any proceedings being taken against him by the Grocers or any other Company. Similar provisions for the protection of their trades existed in many of the Companies—the Skinners, the Dyers, the Pewterers, the Merchant Taylors, and many others. Very peculiar rights appear to have been exercised by the Company of Stationers. They were not so much censors of the Press, for in those days the Press did not exist, but they were the custodians of the national mind. In the reign of Queen Mary, in order to protect the Church and State, a charter was granted to the Stationers, by which they had power to search in the shops of the different booksellers and destroy works which might tend to promote sedition or heresies. For discharging this duty they seem to have been allowed the right of publishing almanacks, and in these they exercised the functions of soothsayers and astrologers. They were not particularly successful in their vaticinations. Success to Charles I., Charles II., and to Commonwealth was alike predicted, and many of the expeditions proved disastrous which their prophets favoured with propitious omens. Old Moore and poor Richard's almanack are still published under their auspices: issued with the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Canterbury they were long considered the best publications produced in England. It has been difficult to find, it is said by some authorities, in so small a compass such a quantity of

  1127
  ignorance, profligacy, and imposture as is still condensed in these publications. They preserved this exclusive right to issue almanacks until a very recent period. At the end of the last century a printer named Carnan brought an action on the subject against the Stationer's Company; but through their wealth and influence—notwithstanding the legal decision theoretically abolished the monopoly in 1775—they were able to buy up all rival publications, and it was not until 1828, when the Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge was first started, that the power of issuing almanacks opened the channels of free trade, and distributed this monopoly among other bodies. There are still certain Companies which exercise their trade privileges. The Goldsmiths have the right of assaying metals, and the Gunsmiths of proving gun barrels. The Fishmongers have the right of destroying putrid fish, and the Apothecaries of destroying unsaleable drugs, and in this respect no doubt they render valuable services. Generally speaking, however, the Companies do very little, indeed nothing, to promote that technical education and instruction which is so much needed, and instead of these mysteries being lawfully trained, regulated, and governed in order, as the ancient Charters express it, that no bad or false workmanship may be admitted, everything in regard to the education and improvement of taste in technical or scientific knowledge is left to Sir Henry Cole, Mr. Buckmaster, and the teachers of the large Establishment of the Government at the South Kensington Museum, and the inadequate efforts of a few philanthropic and benevolent persons who may initiate some privateenterprize. I should be sorry, however, were I not to recognize the few services which some of the Companies have, to a certain extent, rendered. I am aware that something has lately been done by the Clockmakers and Coachmakers providing a small technical library and exhibitions of models and of drawings. Others are well and honourably known in connection with the schools in aid of which they may have given generous contributions. Something has been done by the Grocers and Cloth workers to promote the delegacy of unattached students at Oxford. We have heard something, too, of what has been done by the
  1128
  Turners; but their efforts only serve to show how they should be imitated and emulated by the larger Companies. Nothing, it appears to me, could be more judicious than the scheme of examination and the character of prizes awarded by the Company of Turners—it is well known they are of small and comparatively limited resources. Why are not commensurate efforts made by the others?
  It is not long since that the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in an address to his constituents in the autumn, at Greenwich, supplemented by a paper in Evening Hours, pointed out how much might be done in the interests of the working classes by efforts to improve education in the interests of art and science, were their efforts properly directed. In the course of his remarks he said that it was much to be regretted that such great attempts had to be made by Government instead of agencies less centralized. The only power strong enough in that direction, he said, appeared to be in the London Companies, they were great institutions—probably unparalleled. It was sometimes remarked, however, he continued, by the timid that in this country there were few fortifications; there was one, however, far away without a rival, and that was the City of London. If the foundations of that great deep were ever to be broken up, it was to be hoped that the leading adjuncts of its high functions would be re-adjusted in accordance with the spirit of the age, if it was to maintain its position as the centre of the commerce of the world.
  It is sometimes alleged that the City has a monopoly of these privileges: I will quote from various charters to prove that these benefits were bestowed not merely on the City but on the surrounding areas. A Charter given by William and Mary to the Grocers provided that all persons carrying on the business of confectioners or refiners within the City, or within three miles thereof, should be of the Commonalty of Grocers. The Charter of the Draper provides that no man shall be admitted to the Drapers' Company unless he has duly practised the trade of a draper. The Goldsmiths' Charter includes all those instructed in the trade within the City and three miles. The Merchant Taylors' Charter requires that members shall be engaged in the making

  1129
  of apparel in the City or suburbs. It is the same with the Cloth workers, and similar conditions are contained in the Charters of the Dyers, Brewers, Leather-sellers, Carpenters, Cordwainers, Cutlers, and Carriers, and many others. It may be now asked, what right have suburban trades people to participate in their rights and privileges? It was said by Lord Macaulay that London was to the Londoner what Athens was to the Athenians in the days of Pericles, and Florence to the Florentine in the 16th century: the Citizen was proud of the grandeur of his City, punctilious of her claims to respect, conscious of her privileges, and jealous of her franchises. Unfortunately, however, instead of extending its advantages for the good of the many, it has confined them, in the present day, for the advantage of a very few. Instead of opening its arms and embracing the surrounding areas, it has confined itself to its own immediate precincts and narrowed its borders.
  I have shown clearly and distinctly from the documents I have quoted that those Companies cannot be looked upon as voluntary societies, but that they are public bodies, of which not only Courts of Assistants but all the members have full right to be beneficiaries. It has been frequently decided that they are not, as in the case of other corporations, members by prescriptive usage, but that membership ought to be confined to persons possessing certain qualifications—namely, those who are really working members and have a complete knowledge of their respective trades, well acquainted with the working of the said mysteries, and having the power to compel other persons to become members. Their original object appears to have been to connect themselves with those by whom the interests of their trade might be promoted. They were inspectors of adulterated articles, and were to interest themselves in all such proceedings by which their fellow-workers might become benefited. I would ask, are they now fulfilling those duties? or are their funds being devoted to other objects and different purposes? A Charter was given to the Drapers' Company as far back as the reign of Edward III., continued by Richard II., wherein it was stated, that because strangers had entered London and interfered and meddled with the trade in
  1130
  such a manner so that the price of drapery enhanced and its quality deteriorated, in future no person should carry on the trade of a draper in the City of London, or the suburbs, unless he had been initiated and admitted as a member of the Drapers. The Government have urged, as a reason for not giving any particulars with reference even to the government of these bodies, that some of them have disappeared or been obliterated in consequence of the decay of the trade with which they were originally identified: there is nothing, however, to prevent those which are moribund from being resuscitated. Comparing the Report of the Commissioners with the City Directory, which professes to give a complete list of the various Companies, I find that the latter takes no notice of the Paviours, the Comb makers, the Silk-throwers, the Silk men, the Pin makers, the Gardeners, the Soap makers, the Ribband-makers, the Tobacco Pipe makers, the Long Bowstring-makers, the Wood mongers, the Fishermen, &c.; though they were not large or important bodies, it may be fairly asked what has become of them and of their funds and properties, if such ever existed. From the fact that many of these Charters are still unrepealed, it is quite competent for these bodies to reassert their trade privileges if they dared. It is not likely they would venture to do so with the present popular views on the subject of Free Trade; but, to a certain extent, it must be regarded as a perversion of public funds that these vast sums should be given to wealthy, and from the fact of being wealthy, often obscure, City men, and that nothing should be done for the working classes of Clerkenwell, Hackney, and Bethnal Green. While I have pointed out that under their charters the City and suburban trade have to discharge certain grave and important responsibilities, the advantages conferred upon them by holding these charters can with difficulty be estimated. Under them the right of holding land in perpetual succession, contrary to the Statute of Mortmain, has been granted. The whole question of revenues in mortmain may be variously debated. Everyone is aware that large estates are held by this tenure both by the Universities and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, as was shown by the Commission which re-

  1131
  cently reported on University Revenues, nothing could be more satisfactory than the management of their property by the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges. Why, I ask, should not the same amount of information be given about these City Companies? It may be asked why it is, if the metropolitan trades people are really interested in these matters, that their rights have not been re-asserted? Well, I believe that, to a large extent, they are ignorant of their privileges, and that that ignorance has been studiously and carefully fostered by the darkness and mystery by which the Courts of Assistants have been determined that their management should be surrounded.
  In order that the dignity and grandeur of the City might be promoted, power is given to the Guilds under these charters to purchase lands for the benefit of the aged, the weak, and decayed persons. I might well ask, for reasons which shall presently be stated, if the property so obtained by the Merchant Taylors and the Wax Chandlers has been always so devoted. The Goldsmiths, by a charter given to them in the reign of Edward III., confirmed by Richard II., were entitled to purchase land to the value of £20 a-year for the sustentation of weak and aged decayed Goldsmiths; because it was found in the practice of their trade that the smoke of the quicksilver injured their eyes, and tended to make these persons prematurely weak, decayed, and infirm. In process of time, by mechanical improvements, these dangers have been removed, but how is that money now disposed of? What is the present value of the land? Is it given to the interests of the poor? It is greatly to be regretted that in regard to the tenure of property in land by these Companies so much ignorance prevails. No reliance can be placed on the Domesday Return Book, and, as far as the City is concerned, there is no Return. These bodies pay no succession duty, and they never sell, and yet many of them are those who scarcely lift a finger of their hands to do anything for the promotion of that technical instruction for the want of which our public buildings are monuments of want of taste, and our shops are filled with cheap and nasty stuff, instead of anything which is of real and substantial worth. It should be remembered that of all the places in this country in which land is chiefly covetable it is so in the
  1132
  City of London. The evil to which I have alluded has increased, and is increasing, with our vast growth of population, and, if continued unchecked, it will soon be said that there will be scarcely an inch of land to stand upon. There is another wide question in reference to these bodies which I will briefly touch upon—I mean their ecclesiastical preferments. I possess particulars with reference to the manner of distribution and patronage of livings in the hands of some of the accredited representatives of the Companies, and without entering into particulars, I will merely remark that it is, in my judgment, a question how far they are proper bodies to whom such grave functions should be intrusted. Having now spoken of their different duties and privileges, we may form some estimate of what is the magnitude of their revenues. The property possessed by them is variously estimated. I have heard it said that they possess an annual income of £300,000 or £500,000. This is sometimes thought exaggerated. However, I have lately examined the City Rate Books, and I find that in the City of London alone, as appears by the Valuation Books in the 80 City parishes, the gross estimated rental possessed by these Bodies amounts to £500,416. That is exclusive of their property in other parts of the metropolis as well as in different parts of the country, their Irish estates, and their personal property. Mr. Gilbert, author of Contrasts, some two years ago published in that work some interesting particulars in reference to these revenues. The facts given by Mr. Gilbert have never been contradicted. He stated that from the City Rate Book he had abstracted the estimated rental of seven of the large Halls, and to the amount of rental he added an equal sum for rates, insurances, and household expenses. This is the result of the estimate of these various "household management" expenses. The Cloth workers, £10,000; the Drapers, £16,000; the Fishmongers, £7,000; the Goldsmiths, £11,000; the Merchant Taylors, £6,000; the Salters, £6,000; the Grocers, £8,000. In the Report of the Commissioners full information is given in reference to the revenues possessed by the Drapers. They are put down at £24,000. Since then, their large Hall in Throgmorton Street has been erected, at a cost of £7,000–£5,000

  1133
  is spent on payments to salaried officers, £4,000 on entertainments, and £4,000 on alms and charities. From information I have received from private sources the property of the Drapers has of late considerably increased from the falling in of leases. The ground rent of a recent garden in the City is now annually worth £16,000.
  I spoke, in the earlier part of my remarks, of the privileges accorded to the Drapers. I might ask, how far have the Drapers of London now any participation in the distribution of those large revenues? I have already said that they present no balance sheet; that they have no properly constituted system of audit; and that they give no information in reference to the administration of their properties; that any attempt at reformation and improvement is resisted; that it is always looked on with deep-rooted objection is not astonishing. All reform within the City is intolerable; it is illustrated by a mere recapitulation of what took place in 1856 in the Court of Aldermen, when Sir George Grey brought forward a Bill for improved municipal government in London—described as a very mild measure—and when it was then stated by these gentlemen, that they were surprised to find a great statesman applying the idea of meum and tuum to a great Corporation in a way different from what he would apply it to a private individual.
  It is sometimes alleged, that as regards their trust property, the Companies are under the Charity Commissioners. This is perfectly true as regards this trust property; but in respect to the corporate property they are wholly unrestricted. Jobbery has not been unfrequent in municipal bodies. The best guarantee for good management is a system of public accounts, with properly appointed and responsible auditors: but close self-elected Courts, are open to the gravest possible abuses. To my mind a very narrow line divides the two classes of property in all reformed, and in all unreformed corporations, those used for external objects—not affecting the inner life of the municipality—such as doles, alms, and charities, and of those affecting the management for internal purposes, such as the support of town clerks, halls, and offices. It was decided, at the time of the passing of the Act of 1835, that in the case of all corporations
  1134
  scheduled in that Act, both were to be applied for public interests and public uses; and I should like to know whether any distinction can be drawn between the two classes of property which are possessed by reformed bodies mentioned in the Act, and those which were omitted. I think the charge might be made against the London Companies that, perhaps through their apathy, the education of the metropolis has been neglected. The expenditure of the London School Board has made quite a flutter amongst the metropolitan Vestries. I have by me a list of all the resolutions which have been passed by the different Vestries on this subject: on all sides there has been what I may call a howl of indignation from the London ratepayers; but this would never have been put forward had there been a greater desire on the part of the City Companies to educate independent traders, instead of squandering their own revenues for private purposes. It is not an expression to which I am particularly devoted—but what Mr. Mill called the unearned increment of these bodies has been disproportionately given to private objects, whilst public objects have lain by and been neglected. It would be waste of time to show how enormously their property has increased in particular instances. I will illustrate it, however, from two cases, in respect of property belonging to the Mercers, and ex uno disce omnes. They hold property under trust from Sir Thomas Gresham, and from Lady Joan Bradbury. Both these estates are mentioned in the Return obtained by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu). I find that property was left by Lady Joan Bradbury, according to the Return, amounting to £1 10 s. a-year, to be given to educational purposes. I have obtained particulars from the Charity Commissioners, and find that 10 years ago the value of that property was estimated at £8,709 by the assistant of the Commissioners. Sir Thomas Gresham left £340 for educational purposes, and the moiety of the value of that estate in the neighbourhood of the Royal Exchange now amounts to £12,240. I think that, in any inquiry into these Companies, it would be well to ascertain how the Courts interpret decayed members—whether they are decayed in business, failed by their own rash and foolish speculations,

  1135
  or whether they are honest tradesmen, whose health may have broken down and families become ruined in the attempts to earn an honest livelihood. There is no doubt that large sums of money were left to the Companies distinctly for what may be called "jollification purposes;" and in any inquiry into their revenues there is no reason to suppose that these would be interfered with. £20,000 was given to the Clothworkers "for making themselves comfortable." There can be no doubt that the money is industriously employed; but is that always the case where property has been bequeathed for the interests of the poor? Two cases I might mention, well known to lawyers—ignored, perhaps, by other persons—where money given for charitable objects was for many years diverted for private uses. I allude to the cases of Donkyn's bequest to the Merchant Taylors, and Kendall's to the Wax Chandlers—in both these cases it was held by the Master of the Rolls, and afterwards by the Court of Appeal, on the clearest possible issues that property given for the specific objects had been devoted to corporate purposes. When they sometimes accomplish charitable objects they do soat enormous expense. In 1812 a set of almshouses was built by the Goldsmiths at a cost of £600 for each inmate accommodated, and in one case lately, when an apprentice fee of £10 was to be charged, the Court made it an excuse for a dinner which cost £100. Once a person was asked if he could account for the longevity of some of the members of the Company: he replied—"The dinners have done it;" and though there may be ample evidence to show record of copious feasting in the early days of these bodies, there is nothing to show how much was given for the corporate funds of the society, and how much by the individual entertainers. I must now point out that in no respect can these bodies be regarded as independent autonomies, but that they are responsible both to the City and to the Crown for the discharge of their different duties. Time fails me to recount the different cases in which members of different Courts applied to the Court of Aldermen for incorporating charters; and fines were imposed on refractory members. I will not take the earlier cases, but quote only later
  1136
  instances. In 1752 five liverymen of the Merchant Taylors applied to the Court for a copy of the Company's bye-laws; it was only granted apprehensively, when an application was threatened to the Court of Aldermen, calling on them to produce the withheld information. Subsequently the Lord Mayor and Aldermen passed a resolution to the effect that the several Companies were under the government of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. In 1853 the Court of Common Council had before them three ordinances of the Clothworkers, when two were accepted and one rejected. In 1774 the Common Council enacted that no person should be allowed to be a butcher in a particular district unless he was free of the Butchers Company; and by a second enactment of 1770, no person was allowed to carry on the trade of a poulterer unless he was free of the Poulterers. The Court of Aldermen refused to grant a livery to the Clockmakers until 1766; and only last year we had before us in this House the case of the Needlemakers, upon which the Court of Aldermen gave them permission to increase their livery by 100 members. The power of the Crown over these bodies has been from time to time vigorously questioned. In the reign of Richard II., under pain of forfeiture, the Companies were required to deliver to the Sovereign copies of their origin, foundations, statutes, liberties, privileges, rules, and ordinances, together with a statement of their property, and the income derived from it—ever since that time, up to the reign of William III., that right was continuously asserted. In aid of the various sovereigns they gave enormous subventions—Henry VIII., Charles I., and Charles II. all extorted from them vast contributions. In the reign of Charles II., in 1684, that Monarch declared all their charters forfeited, and granted them new ones, by which the right of perpetual succession was secured, but the officers of the Companies were made responsible to the Crown; and the whole body of the free men and livery to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. I have, perhaps, dwelt too much on this subject, and on what may be called its historical and legal bearings; but it is really necessary, in order to show the House the position of these bodies. In the reign of William III., to gain the good-will of the companies, that

  1137
  monarch repealed all the new charters, and granted in their full validity the old ones, on the plea that they had been tyrannically extorted, instead, as was actually the case, that they had been voluntarily ceded. In 1837 they fiercely resisted the inquiries of the Municipal Commissioners; but Parliament having then declared them to be municipal corporations, any information now refused as to their status by Parliament would be distinctly retrogressive. Ever since then they have slept and slumbered, and have remained practically unmolested. It is not true wisdom, on the part of any public body possessed of large powers and endowed with large revenues, to resist Parliamentary control and inquiry. It is 40 years since this question was first brought forward in this House, and then Parliamentary government may be said to have been upon its trial, while now it is in the fulness of its power. On the Continent, as well as in this country, public bodies are under the control of various Departments of the State. When I have shown to the satisfaction of the House that these Companies, who possess large properties, do little else than spend large sums in conventional almsgiving and gorgeous entertainments, it will not be long before there arises an ardent desire for reform. We have a strong love in this country for ancient institutions—a wholesome dread of centralization; and there may be a wish sometimes to see public duties performed by bodies of irresponsible and unofficial men; but if there exists a feeling that something is kept back from the public eye, it will not be long before there arises a strong feeling of misgiving, and the members of these bodies will perceive that there is a limit to the indulgence and forbearance of their fellow-countrymen.
  Sir, I am aware that this Motion will be opposed—it will be with anxiety that I listen to the grounds. The strength of the opposition I very well know. In former days the Companies have supported the Corporation—and I suppose the Corporation will now support the Companies. I hope that, in anything I have said, no one will assume that I wish that they should be obliterated and swept away: I only wish that they should be more fully alive to the altered circumstances and necessities of the present day. No doubt they have at
  1138
  times been the means of doing good. I dare say whoever answers me will reveal some long catalogue of the public benefits they have conferred. Still, at the same time, I say that such arguments are worthless, unless they also reveal the opportunities they have. No doubt they have done great things; but I cannot conceal the fact that sometimes great things have been done even by profligate and worthless men. I have no doubt that my Motion will be opposed on both sides: the opposition on the other I can easily understand; but I hope on this, at least, that before voting hon. Members will pause and ask themselves whether they are acting consistently with the principles which they have on previous occasions steadfastly and religiously upheld. I am aware of the difficulties in which many are involved. If there were no other considerations than great dinners it is unpleasant, for many of them, that they should be brought, I will not say into collision, but opposition with those with whom they have long been connected. I ask them, however, not to let their gratitude for past kindnesses blind them to the existence of present abuses. If their management is so excellent, why should it be concealed? It can only lead to the supposition of the existence of abuses in which the members of the different Companies can hardly be supposed anxious that it should be believed that they should abound. As far as confiscation is concerned, they need scarcely be afraid; and I therefore ask them, in a spirit consistent with the age, to give the information which has been so long and so studiously withheld. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Address.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,in seconding the Motion, said, he regretted that he was physically unable to make a speech in its favour. His hon. Friend had shown that the City Companies were public bodies, and, moreover, that they were public bodies possessed of great endowments. Now, such bodies could not in those days exist except in the light. He hoped that the Representatives of the City and of the City Companies would show that they did not prefer darkness to light, but would support the Motion, and that it would also receive the support of the Government. Hon. Members on this side of the House would be only acting consistently with

  1139
  the principles the Liberal Party had advocated during past Parliaments in joining in the demand for inquiry made by his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Return setting forth in detail a Statement of the real and personal property vested in the City of London Companies respectively; also a detailed Statement of the charities payable by such Companies and of the income derived from all sources; and Statement of expenditure and receipts during the last three years preceding the 1st day of January 1875."—(Mr. James.)
  THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman COTTON): said, he could have wished that the defence of the Guilds of the City of London would have been undertaken by a more competent man; but knowing, as he did, the important work which those Guilds had done from time immemorial, he should earnestly raise his voice to enlist the sympathies of the House against the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, and which he considered to be entirely unnecessary and inexpedient. The City Guilds had been established by a time-honoured class, who associated themselves together for the purpose of protecting their trades and interests against the all-powerful influence of the Barons and the King. As time went on their wealth increased, and as it did the cupidity of the ruling powers for the time being was aroused, and it was in consideration of the wealth they handed over to the Monarch that they obtained sundry charters to protect their rights. Now, if a man bought an article it was only a thoroughly English feeling that he should possess, and, if he wished, retain it. Well, the City Companies and Guilds bought all the rights which they possessed. They never received a penny of the public money or of the money of the ratepayers. The whole of the money they possessed was their own. They did what every public body had a right to do. They did what they thought was wise and proper and right to strengthen their own position; and with that view they had obtained the charters from the Monarchs who were willing to sell them. The hon. Member for Gateshead had given very scanty praise to the works of
  1140
  the City Companies and the Guilds. He would ask the House to separate the case of the Corporation of London, which had its own battles to fight, from that of the Guilds, which stood on their own grounds. If hon. Members made themselves acquainted with the history of the City Guilds, they would know what was due to them for the education, the liberties, and the privileges which the country now enjoyed. He knew of no body of men, no body of trustees, who through a long course of four or five centuries had so honestly, so honourably, or so carefully cultivated the various trusts which different persons had committed to their care. It was important to know that when the Charity Commission was created about 25 years ago, and when they went to the City Halls and examined the deeds which were submitted to them no serious charge was brought against the 89 Companies. At that time accounts were rendered to the Charity Commissioners, and every trust which they possessed was now in the hands of those Commissioners, entirely out of their own supervision. No new scheme could be promoted without their consent, and their annual accounts were most faithfully reported to the body. The City Companies submitted cheerfully to the demands made upon them, and rendered a faithful account of their stewardship. Notwithstanding the way in which the Companies had managed their affairs various mixed trusts had been created which had been accepted and acted upon with perfect unanimity. By this means some expense had been put upon the Companies in the shape of payments for clerks and other officers for the duties which they had to perform. They looked to the other part of their property as private property; but before entering upon that point he would mention the amount which had been placed under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners. Their total gross income was, in 1865–6, £99,000 a-year. The Government were in a position to lay the subsequent accounts upon the Table of the House. Of that sum, they expended upon education £19,000; on apprenticeship, £5,600; for endowment of clergymen, £900; for almshouses, £53,900; in sundries, £1,660; and under the head of parishes, schools, &c., £17,900 per annum. Now, that was a very large sum to have been brought down through

  1141
  the dark ages and placed in the hands of Commissioners appointed by Parliament, and they felt that any interference with the property of the Guilds would be a direct attack upon private property. Their property was as much private property as that of any individual in that House. Why did that attack arise? What could be its object? They had no knowledge of what was the object, what alterations were proposed, or who had urged on the hon. Member to bring forward this Motion. He would remind the House that it was the easiest thing in the world, and one of the most pleasurable, to endeavour to become great by putting one's hand in other people's pockets, and if one could by any accident obtain a notoriety which under no other circumstances could be got, there was nothing like attacking bodies where there was supposed to be a very large amount of money. There was one remark of the hon. Member for Gateshead which showed that he did not understand the question with which he was dealing—namely, when he spoke of City Guilds pocketing the funds over which they had control. [Mr. James said, the remark in question was a quotation and referred to a particular case.] Then all he could say was that the quotation was a very unfortunate one, for the City Guilds never did that. They were, he could assure him and the House, composed of men of men of honour, integrity, and respectability who had not the slightest desire to take anything to which they were not fairly entitled, and the whole of the property under their control was watched over most carefully and sedulously and appropriated to some good work or another in the way of technical education, charities, or any other object which might happen to come before them. It was only the other day, for instance, that the Grocer's Company had built at its own cost a very noble wing to the London Hospital, providing it with beds and all other necessary appliances. He could assure the House that the Guilds were all anxious to promote acts of charity, and that they were actuated by no selfish or avaricious motives. He should like, with the permission of the House, to read the opinion which had been formed of them by a man who lived nearly 100 years ago, and who in terse, old-fashioned, and truthful language, spoke of their charters as "the great
  1142
  bonds of the City, conferring liberty and security." They had been the cause, he added, of "the wonderful extension of the commerce of Britain which stood unrivalled," while "they did not militate against the general good or favour monopoly." Further on the same writer said—
  "However great the privileges of the citizens of London may be, those rights have been the effects of purchase on their parts rather than of the munificence of Monarchs."
  At elections he described them as possessing "integrity and honour," and as being free from all sordid motives, adding, that if they did not always send Members to the House of Commons from their own body who were equal in point of oratory to some other Members of the British Senate, they, at all events, returned as their Representatives men who were actuated by an honest desire to serve their country. The writer further observed that the citizens of London were industrious, persevering, honest, and the first traders in the world. ["Name!"] He was quoting from the work of the compiler of the charters of the Corporation of the City, and was it right, he would now ask, that these citizens should be attacked because they had grown wealthy, like the whole country around them? Had not these Guilds concentrated around them the commerce and the wealth that had made the City so great? Had they not always been the pioneers of education? Had they not increased the value of their own property? And was this not an attack on the rights of property which that House would reject by a triumphant majority? If the House did so, as he believed it would, it would only be doing an act of justice to the long past career of these institutions, and would be affirming their corporate rights, and in that way help to advance the cause of charity, the well-being of their fellow-citizens, and the general good of the country.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERmust say that he had never heard a weaker case than that which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) in support of a Motion which was, he believed, unprecedented in the annals of the House. He gave an interesting, antiquarian, and historical account of those Guilds, but what had

  1143
  he made out? Did he show that there was any gross abuse requiring the interference of Parliament, or anything wrong in the management of the property which the ordinary Courts were not in a position to reach? Did he mean to say that the Guilds were not as able now as in former times to perform their functions? Of course, the Grocers did not exercise their jurisdiction over peppers and sugars, or the Stationers over the character of the books on sale; but to charge them with not doing such things was simply to say that what was useful in the days of the Plantagenets was not useful now. The property of these Companies was in no respect different from private property. If a private person held property subject to certain duties, then he was amenable to the law for the performance of those duties; but if he possessed property without any specific duties attached to it, that property could be dealt with as he pleased. It was just the same in point of law with corporations. The hon. Member had moved for an Address to the Crown calling for a Return of the property of the charities forming the subject-matter of his Motion. This was not only proposing an inquisitorial proceeding, but it was calling upon the Crown to do an unconstitutional act. There had been quo warranto Commissions to inquire into the affairs of public bodies; but they were always considered a great invasion of the liberties of the subject, and of the rights of property. But suppose such a Commission was issued, what power was there to enforce it? The Companies would refuse any information, and they would be right in their refusal; for if they did not stand on their legitimate rights and resist an unconstitutional excess of the Prerogative of the Crown, whether advised by this House or not, they would be false to their duty as Englishmen, they would betray the rights of the people, and would be establishing a precedent which might be most injurious to the public liberty. In the second part of the Motion the hon. Gentleman asked for a Return of the charities payable by the Companies. This, again, was an illegal demand, as put in the Motion, because all the charities were under the control of the Charity Commissioners, who alone had the right to make any inquiries on the subject. On the whole,
  1144
  therefore, he hoped the Motion would be rejected by a large majority.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not propose to detain the House for any length upon this occasion. It appears to me that my hon. Friend has made a Motion by which he has sown a seed of which I hope he will live to reap the harvest at a future day. The hon. Baronet who has just sat down says he never heard a weaker case. I have sat a good deal longer in Parliament than he has, and I doubt if I ever heard a stronger one. But, however that may be, I think my hon. Friend has himself recognized the fact that the circumstances under which he makes his Motion are not altogether propitious for its obtaining a favourable judgment. There is, I must say, another point which occurs to me, which renders it difficult for the House to adopt a Motion in this form. My hon. Friend prays for an Address to the Crown to obtain certain information from the London Companies. Now, the Crown, I apprehend, has no power to obtain that information, and I own that I for one agree on that point with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, for I have been myself a party to the issue of Royal Commissions where the Crown had no power to enforce the rendering of the information sought to be obtained. But that has always been in cases where the bodies to whom Commissions were addressed—namely, the governing bodies of public schools and Universities—were known from previous inquiries to be willing that that method of procedure should be adopted. I think there would be great inconvenience in asking the Crown, even if the Crown were willing, to issue a Commission in invitos, which, according to my idea, it has no power to enforce, either by the use of the Prerogative, which has nothing to do with the matter, or by any other means. As regards the substance of the Motion of my hon. Friend, I confess it is to me a matter of very great regret that there should be the reluctance declared by the Lord Mayor on the part of the Companies to deal with this subject. I believe with the Lord Mayor that these Companies are composed of men, as he has assured us eight or ten times over—and really it appeared to me to indicate a doubt on the part of the Lord Mayor that he thought it necessary to reiterate that so

  1145
  many times, and from so many sources of assurance—are composed of honest, honourable, and respectable men. Now, he seems to think that that is a matter of so much dispute that it requires a great number of assertions on his part to make good his ground. For my part, on a single assertion on the part of the Lord Mayor, or without a single assertion, I should fully accede to that proposition. I fully believe in their honesty and honour, and in their doing many things which are useful. On the other hand, the doctrine that these corporations hold property which is to be regarded as private property in respect to its rights and immunities, is a doctrine which I thought pretty well disposed of by Parliament and by the judgments of statesmen and Representatives of the people for not less than the last 30 or 40 years. That doctrine has been revived upon the present occasion, and I must own in a form—and we must distinguish the form from the substance—which I think it would be very difficult to press. We must distinguish what I conceive to be the true as against the untrue. It is not necessary, I think, to hold that the gentlemen composing these Companies are in any way disentitled to the character of honourable men; nor is it necessary to hold that all their actions are bad, and that all their property is wasted. What my hon. Friend has shown is, that these are bodies possessing a public character, holding vast masses of property, and not only so, but that in the particular case of the London Companies they are not able to set up those very shadowy claims to exemption from Parliamentary jurisdiction which might perhaps be set up in the case of other corporations, because these London Companies exercise a most direct and commanding influence over the whole constitution of the municipality of London, and these principles and powers, public in the highest sense, are exercised by these bodies for whom the right hon. Gentleman asks us to recognize the rights to private property. Now I believe, in principle, that they are open to the exercise of Parliamentary jurisdiction and authority. I likewise believe that, although many things are done by them that are good and desirable, although sometimes the world is delighted, and perhaps a little astonished, by a splendid example of judicious mu-
  1146
  nificence, something like that of the building of the new wing of the London Hospital by the Grocers' Company—which the Lord Mayor appropriately and wisely quoted—yet I, for one, am under a very strong impression that much of the revenue of these Companies is positively and utterly wasted, and very imperfectly and doubtfully bestowed. I put it boldly to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters—not in support of this Motion, because I do not think the Crown ought to be invited to undertake a function which it is not constitutionally empowered to carry through—that I do think it a matter for the deepest regret that this reserve should be maintained. The public character of these Companies it is altogether too late to dispute. The right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Mayor) was compelled to begin by asking us to do that which no person, I think, in endeavouring to argue this case could dream of doing—namely, to separate completely between the character of the Companies as holders of vast masses of property, and the characters of the Companies as invested with the most important powers and powerful privileges in regard to the government of the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman found it essential to his case that he should entirely put out of view that the Companies command in a great degree the government, and even the representation in Parliament, of the City of London. In the very highest sense these are public bodies. Depend upon it, it is for their interests that they should not wait to be forced, that they should not wait to be pressed. It is all very well in the present state of things, in the present state of public sentiment, and in the present balance of parties in this House, for the right hon. Gentleman to hold the language that he has held to-day. It is perfectly possible there may be a majority, and perhaps a large majority, ready to back him in the use of that language; but can he guarantee the permanence of that balance of parties? Can he guarantee that that state of public opinion will endure? Because, unless he can, depend upon it will be dangerous if, when that balance is changed, and when that state of public opinion is changed, it is recollected that an obstinate, an unflinching, and what may then be called, pro-

  1147
  bably, an unreasonable resistance was offered—not to unjust or violent legislation, not even to proposals of a questionable character, but to the simple publication of the facts of the case with regard to the disposal of this vast mass of property. Now, Sir, I agree with my hon. Friend, I think, in almost everything that fell from him, but especially in the broad declaration he made that he had no desire to get rid of these Companies. On the contrary, my desire, and my anxious desire, is, that these Companies should be brought to the highest state of efficiency, and that their vast property should be disposed in the manner most likely to produce the greatest public advantage—but to produce that greatest public advantage through their machinery and by their hands. That is what, I think, my hon. Friend desires, and that is what I believe the House almost unanimously desires. If this policy of unequivocal and uncompromising resistance, even to the disclosure of information, be pursued too far, the time may come when possibly reforms may advance, not only with a bolder front, but with very different objects, and when the very great inconvenience of applying these large funds for the benefit of the City of London otherwise than through the machinery of the Companies—instead of being as it now is, an idle and remote speculation—may become a real danger. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who think with him and act with him, will do nothing to provoke that danger. I cannot expect that any address that I may make to him or to others will at all tend to produce a more communicative disposition on the part of the Guilds; but, notwithstanding, I think it is a public duty on our part to lay down the doctrine that a declaration of their affairs—they being, as we believe, perfectly honest and honourable in the administration of these funds—can be nothing but beneficial to them, while the refusal of the information can be nothing but injurious. I know not what Her Majesty's Government may intend or propose to do in respect to the Motion that is now before the House; but I shall certainly be very much disappointed even if Her Majesty's Government—little as I agree with them in the views they take in many points upon public affairs—do not go so far at least in the same path as my hon. Friend
  1148
  as to express a disposition favourable to the free and voluntary production of this information. The information sooner or later must be had. Now is the time when, if it is given, it will be given as an act of grace. I entreat those who are concerned to consider whether to pursue the course that is now recommended, and to grant that information by their own voluntary concession will not be the wisest and most politic course for themselves with reference to the interests of which they are stewards and guardians.
  MR. GOLDNEYaltogether differed from the notion of the right hon. Gentleman that these Companies were public bodies. The Corporations Commission of 1837 had showed that the City Companies had no control either as regarded municipal institutions or Parliamentary representation. Their duty was merely ministerial—that of admitting to their body freemen who were entitled to claim admission. The gentlemen by whom their affairs were administered were of the highest possible character, and there was a feeling of strong anxiety that they should be left alone.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had pronounced a glowing eulogy upon the gentlemen who had managed and directed those Guilds. As for the Lord Mayor's speech, that brought to his recollection the character which was given to George Barnwell, who was modest, tender, regular, pious, and devout. The character of the gentlemen belonging to the Guilds had never been called in question. It simply confused the issue to represent for a moment that the supporters of the Motion threw any doubt whatever upon their characters. He himself knew many of these gentlemen, and he could testify that they were men against whose character not one word could be uttered. Nay more, he was willing to admit that in many cases they had made a good use of their funds. The Lord Mayor contended that one reason why they should be exempt from inquiry by the House was that £90,000 or £100,000 a-year was brought by them under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. But the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) had shown that their property in the City alone amounted to £500,000 a-year, and there would

  1149
  therefore be £400,000 a-year, even if they had no other property, which they devoted to some use not explained. The Lord Mayor in his statement with regard to these Companies did not once allude to the item of hospitality. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had urged the hon. Member not to press his Motion, because the House had no power to compel these Companies to give the information asked for, and had said that during all the time he was in office he had never been a party to issuing a Commission in invitos—
  MR. GLADSTONE: I distinctly said I had been a party to issuing certain Commissions; but no Commission of the Crown had been issued in invitos, and that is a very wide distinction.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in 1835 a large number of municipal corporations refused to give information to the Commissioners of Inquiry, but that fact did not prevent the House from proceeding to deal with those corporations after an inquiry had been held. It should be borne in mind that the Motion did not propose legislation, but merely asked for information. The Lord Mayor stated that the City Companies had bought their privileges from the Crown; but it was clear to all who read the charters which they had obtained that they had reference to the performance of public duties by those to whom they were granted. The performance of those duties had confessedly fallen into disuse, and what they now contended was that the House ought to know the growth of the vast revenues which were held for public uses. There was now a great outcry for technical education, and it was most desirable that a portion of the income of these Companies, which amounted to between £500,000 and £1,000,000, should be applied to the promotion of technical and general education. It had always been held on that side of the House, and was now held by many Members on the Conservative side, that public bodies could not hold land except for public purposes, and on several occasions the present Home Secretary had used language which went far to support that view. For his own part, he should be prepared to go further, and contend that even as regarded property held for general corporate purposes, and not as regarded charitable purposes, these properties were charities within
  1150
  the very wide definition of the Act of Elizabeth. That Act, he believed, intended to include property of this kind, although he believed the Charity Commissioners took a narrower view.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was not his intention to trouble the House at any length, especially after the turn which the debate had taken. No one had a higher respect than he had for the great Corporation of the City of London, and for all the great advantages which the country had derived from it through past generations in respect to liberty and freedom. No one had a higher idea than he had of the important position which the City would, he hoped, long fill in this country, going on in the same path as it had hitherto done, flourishing and to flourish for the benefit of the community. He was bound to say, in considering any matter relating to the City of London, and the Guilds connected with that City, that he did not think sufficient attention was always paid to the magnitude of the body with which they had to deal. Since he had held his present office he had had schemes and plans laid before him by the handful for the reform of the Corporation of the City, not only as to its property, but as to the Corporation itself, for the total remodelling of it from one end to the other, and also for what was called enlarging it; and he was sure that a great many of the persons who had brought forward those schemes had not given the subject the amount of attention which it deserved. He was not now referring to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), on whose proposals he presumed they would have a discussion this Session, and who had devoted much consideration to the matter, but many of the plans that had been placed before him clearly showed that their authors had not carefully weighed their proposals in the balance. In the first place, if anything was to be done in a matter of this magnitude, it ought, he thought, to be brought forward by the Government of the day. Again, if bodies, whether they had property or not, were fairly carrying out their duties—he did not say so fully as might be wished, but without any very grievous default—they ought not to be disturbed, unless it was intended not only to disturb them, but to go on and do something more. The

  1151
  Government had no such intention at that moment, and he certainly did not think the House ought to grant a fishing inquiry as to the property of bodies of that kind. That subject had been inquired into long ago. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1837 there was a great mass of information relating to all those bodies, though he did not mean to say that information was full; and before the Commission a great number of those bodies tendered not only their charters and their history, but also their accounts. He had listened carefully to the hon. Member who had made the present Motion to learn whether, as regarded the Companies which then produced their accounts, there were any grave charges to be alleged as to the way in which they had administered their property; and he thought before any steps could be taken in such a serious matter it would be necessary to adduce much more elaborate statements than those which fell from the hon. Member, and also to make out a much stronger case than he had submitted to them for the interference of the House. But the main reason why he rose to object to that Motion had been anticipated by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). If the House would look carefully at the Motion, they would see that it was for an Address to the Crown, asking it to do that which it was absolutely impossible for the Crown to do. It might be said that he had taken part in regard to the issue of a Commission for an inquiry into certain other Corporations; but it would be recollected that that other inquiry had reference to bodies with licensing duties, though some other matters were also thrown in. He was sure, then, that it would be the feeling of the vast majority of the House that the hon. Member ought not to press his Motion to a division. He really did not see that any practical good would come from it, neither did he think the matter was one that should be stirred in that way. If, therefore, he might presume to tender advice to the hon. Member for Gateshead, he would recommend him to allow his Motion to be withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I am most anxious, since I have proposed inquiries, to state why I cannot think of supporting this Motion. I cannot, be-
  1152
  cause I have seen from the outset of the hon. Member for Gates head's statement that his Motion is deficient of foundation on any valid public grounds. It has not been shown that the existence of these Companies, holding their property under charter, is contrary to the public welfare or to the public policy of the nation. It has not been shown that there is anything in their position otherwise than consistent with public freedom. It has not been shown that their existence is in any sense illegal. On the contrary, whenever their charters have been in question they have been maintained in the Courts of Law. I wish for one moment to advert to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed upon the assumption that no property ought to be held sacred, the details of the administration of which are not brought under the direct purview of Parliament. Why, Sir, that is a most oppressive doctrine. Are we about to tell the Peers that, because they derive their qualifications from their properties, therefore they are bound to disclose their private administration of those properties, because the possession of these properties constitutes their qualification? And are we about to say, with regard to these public Companies, who have held their properties under charter for centuries—properties which are essentially their own—that they shall be necessarily subject to a rule which you will not apply to Peers? This is a most oppressive doctrine, and it goes to a most dangerous extent. The possession of the property by these Companies constitutes the qualification of their members to vote for the City of London, and I say that Parliament has no right to inquire into the administration of the property which constitutes that qualification unless abuse, and gross abuse, has been proved. I say that a qualification by property is in itself no abuse, and that these qualifications lie at the very foundation of the greatness of the Corporation of the City of London. It appears to me that if this system of universal inquiry and publicity is necessitated, it comes to this—that no property shall be held safe except such as may be administered under the direct supervision of Parliament. This would constitute a most egregious invasion of

  1153
  private rights; and in this particular case it would be a direct invasion of the foundation of self-government. These grave considerations appear to me to have been totally overlooked in this debate; but they ought to be overcome before this, as one of the two Houses of Parliament is asked to proceed by an Address, with which, as now proposed, the Crown could only comply by threatening the revocation of all these charters, and thus at once to invade the rights of private property, which the Crown itself has created. I hope the House will excuse my having in these few words expressed my opinion that this Motion, as well as some others which have recently been made in this House, lacks those public grounds—proofs of necessity for the public good—without which inquiry, as it is called, becomes an invasion of property and an act of tyranny.
  MR. PEASErecommended the withdrawal of the Motion, but intimated that if the Government refused to deal with the question, private Members who were interested in it would have no alternative but to bring it forward again and press it at some future time.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EAST INDIA (CHIEF JUSTICES OF HIGH COURTS) BILL— [BILL 98.]
(Sir George Campbell, Sir George Balfour, Mr. Kinnaird.)
EAST INDIA (CHIEF JUSTICES OF HIGH COURTS) BILL— [BILL 98.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIB GEORGE CAMPBELL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that although it might appear to be a small measure in itself, it was one which largely affected the interests of the great mass of the people of India, inasmuch as it might materially modify the whole character of the Judicial Service. The existing Act, which established the High Courts of Justice in that country in 1862, contained a clause providing that the Judges should be chosen from three classes of persons who had qualifications—namely, the Civil Servants of the East India Company, barristers, and persons of other qualifications; but that the Chief Justice must be taken from one class only—namely, barristers. The present Bill sought to amend that clause by
  1154
  providing that the office of Chief Justice should be open to all the Judges, so that the man who showed himself the best man might be promoted, even if he were not a barrister.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS, ABERAVON, &c. (NO. 7) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Salt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the boroughs of Aberavon, Andover, Brighton, and Burnley, the districts of Merthyr Tydvil and Pensarn, the rural sanitary district of the Tadcaster Union, and the borough of Truro, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Salt and Mr. Sclater-Booth.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEMYSS) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the parish of Wemyss, in the county of Fife, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Burials in Churchyards (77), negatived; Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Terry, &c. (No. 4)* (87); Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)* (88).
Report—Partition Act (1868) Amendment* (52); Statute Law Revision (Substitute Enactments)* (82);Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* (78).
Third Reading—Poolbeg Lighthouse* (79), and passed.

BURIALS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.
The Earl Grey.)
BURIALS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.

  (NO. 77.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL GREY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not propose to enter into any argument on the general question whether Dissenters had a grievance with respect to churchyards—that question was sufficiently discussed on the Motion recently made by his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that House (Earl Granville), and he did not intend to revive the discussion which had followed that Motion. It was quite unnecessary for him to do so, because it had been distinctly admitted on that occasion, both by the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council on behalf of the Government, and the most rev. Primates on behalf of the Episcopal Bench, that there did exist a real grievance on the part of the Dissenters, which required to be remedied. All he (Earl Grey) now proposed to attempt was to show in what manner this admitted grievance would be redressed by the Bill he had laid on the Table of the House, and that it did not deserve the somewhat severe strictures which had been passed upon it in the late debate, both by the noble Duke opposite and by the most rev. Primate. Not very long ago a Motion was made in the other House of Parliament on this same subject, and every one who read the debate on that Motion must have remarked that the two Ministers who spoke on behalf of Her Majesty's Government took great pains to show that the grievance of the Dissenters was not the only thing that required redress in connection with the churchyards of this country. They both contended that the sanitary condition of many churchyads also called urgently for attention. He believed that to be perfectly true—no doubt, many of our churchyards were in a most unsatisfactory state. Many of them were inadequate, as regarded extent, to the wants of the present population; and others, while not too small, were so badly arranged as to be injurious to the health of the living. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Cross had ample grounds for their assertions on that matter; and he

  1085
  presumed the inference they intended to draw from the facts they stated was that, any measure for amending the law with respect to churchyards ought to provide for protecting the public health from the dangers to which it was now exposed, as well as for the relief of a large number of our fellow-subjects from a hardship of which they complained. He presumed that must have been the inference they meant to draw from what they stated as to the defective condition of churchyards, since otherwise the statement would have had no bearing whatever on the subject that was under discussion. Assuming that he was right in his understanding of the conclusion they sought to establish, he had to express his entire concurrence in it, and the Bill now before their Lordships was an attempt to give effect to that view of the subject. If provision was to be made for the sanitary improvement of churchyards it seemed clearly necessary that local authorities should be created for that purpose. Whatever was required, whether it were the enlargement or any other improvement of a churchyard must cost money, and he did not know how that was to be obtained except from a rate paid by the parishioners; and if the ratepayers were to provide the money for such purposes, it followed that the ratepayers must have the control of the churchyards for which they were called upon to pay. Accordingly in his Bill he provided for the creation of Burial Boards in parishes. He was aware of the great objection that would be raised to the creation of Burial Boards for this purpose—namely, that this course would be unjustifiable because the freehold of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman. Technically it was quite true that the freehold of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman; but it was shown by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) in the recent debate that the freehold in the incumbent was qualified by the rights of the parishioners, and had in it very little of the nature of property; that, in fact, the position of the parish clergyman in relation to the churchyard was much better described by the term "trustee" for the benefit of the parishioners than, by that of "freeholder." If that were so, no injustice, or hardship, or injury of any kind, would be inflicted on the clergy by transferring to other hands the management of the
  1086
  churchyards. He also ventured to say that in the proposal he made there was nothing of a novel or strange character; for it would be merely a return in principle to what up, to a few years ago, had from time out of mind been the actual state of things in this country. Up to the time of the abolition of church rates the law required the cost of maintaining the churchyards to be provided for out of these rates by the authority of the Vestry. The Vestry was composed either of all the ratepayers of the parish, or of a number of them chosen to represent the general body of the ratepayers. Thus, the ratepayers, either personally or by their representatives, provided the funds for keeping up the churchyards, and, as in other cases, the power of the purse carried with it the control of the service for which the money was provided, so that in fact, in the management of the churchyard the clergyman had to consider what were the wishes of the parishioners. What the Bill proposed was a mere return in principle to this ancient arrangement only substituting a Burial Board composed of a small number of members for the more cumbrous Vestry, which formerly controlled the mode of keeping up of the churchyard. In this manner provision would be made for effecting improvements in churchyards where such improvements were required, without obliging the Board to incur any expense when nothing was required to be done. The appointment of Burial Boards would also afford great facilities for removing the grievance so loudly complained of by Dissenters. In resisting the demand of the Dissenters to be allowed to have their funerals performed in churchyards by their own ministers one of the main topics insisted upon had been the risk that abuses might arise from their having this right conceded to them. There was, in his opinion, but little ground for this apprehension; at the same time he admitted that it would not be right or proper to open the churchyards to Dissenters entirely without check or restriction. For instance, it would be impossible to allow Dissenters to select for the interment of a relative or friend any spot in a churchyard which they might think fit to choose. At present the clergyman had the power of deciding as to where the grave was to be placed: he could object either on

  1087
  sanitary grounds or from a regard to the just claims of others to any particular selection made by the friends of the person to be interred. If Dissenters were admitted to the churchyards, it would be manifestly inconvenient that the clergy should have the task of making such decisions in their case. He had no doubt that in the great majority of cases the good feeling and good sense of the clergy and of the friends of the deceased would prevent any unseemly altercation from arising; but, unfortunately there had been examples of wrong-headedness in a few both of the clergy and of the Dissenters to warn them of the evils which might occasionally arise unless there existed some authority to check ill-advised proceedings either on the one side or the other. For instance, it would be highly inconvenient, to say the least, that a Church and a Dissenting funeral should be appointed to take place at the same hour in the same churchyard, and perhaps close together, all risk of such difficulties would be averted by giving the control of the churchyard to an independent authority as proposed by the Bill. He trusted that he had now sufficiently explained to their Lordships the principles on which he desired to proceed. As he knew that there was no chance of the Bill passing in the present Session he thought it would be a waste of time if, after having explained its principle, he were to proceed to discuss its provisions at greater length. He wished, however, to defend himself against one or two charges with reference to these provisions which had been brought against him. The most rev. Primate said, on the occasion to which he had already referred, that in bringing forward this measure he had shown a want of due consideration for the feelings of the clergy. He could assure his most rev. Friend that he had not proposed the clauses for which he had censured him in any such spirit, but on the contrary with the strongest desire to provide for the opening of the churchyards to Dissenters in a manner the least calculated to wound the feelings of the clergy and the most likely to promote the success of their ministrations and their own comfort. He had believed, and believed still, that this would be best accomplished by relieving them from all responsibility with reference to the management of
  1088
  the burial grounds. In a great majority of town parishes, cemeteries having been established, the clergy had nothing to do with the management of the burying grounds. They had neither authority nor responsibility with regard to it; they had merely to bury the dead of their own congregation when called upon in graves of which the position had been determined by another and independent authority. He had never heard that the instruction of their flocks by the town clergy had been interfered with, or their usefulness diminished by their being thus relieved from any charge of burying grounds. He was totally at a loss to understand why the result should be different because the burying ground happened to be adjoining the church instead of a distance from it. He could not therefore see how any insult or injury to the clergy would be involved in the change he proposed, but he did see how much they would gain by being relieved from a state of things which at least occasionally had the effect of involving them in angry contentions with some of their parishioners. Similar considerations had led him to believe that it would tend to the comfort of the clergy themselves, and prevent them from being mixed up in harassing altercations, that they should be disqualified from becoming members of Burial Boards, and the same disqualification ought, he thought, to be applied to the ministers of Dissenting congregations in the parish. The question, however, was one which might fairly be left to be determined according to the judgment and the wishes of the clergy. There was one other point to which he thought it right to call attention. Their Lordships were aware that it had often been complained that the clergy were now required by law to perform the funeral service of the Church over the bodies of persons with respect to whom they thought it ought not to be used. It might be doubted, perhaps, whether this objection was altogether a reasonable one, and whether it might not be chiefly founded on an incorrect interpretation of the words of their Service. But, be this as it might, as in point of fact many clergymen had a conscientious objection to performing the usual funeral services in such cases, he could have no doubt that this objection ought to be respected. He had accordingly introduced a provision into the Bill by which clergymen

  1089
  would be relieved from the obligation complained of, with the condition he considered indispensable, that when the incumbent of a parish declined to perform the funeral service for a deceased parishioner he should have no right to object to its being performed by another clergyman. The cases would probably be exceedingly rare when another clergyman would consent to perform a funeral service refused by an incumbent, but unfortunately they knew that some few cases had arisen—as when a regular service had been refused in the case of a person held to have been insufficiently baptized by a Wesleyan minister—in which the precautionary regulation would be highly necessary and effectual. He had only to add that if an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months should be moved to his Motion for the second reading he would offer no objection to it as he was aware that a person of such little authority as himself could not hope to settle such a question as that of the amendment of the law of burial; still his object would have been answered by laying the Bill before their Lordships with a view to the future consideration of the subject, and he could not sit down without expressing his strong conviction that it was the duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to take care that another Session should not pass without some measure being brought forward for settling the question in the only manner in which it could be settled—namely, by giving complete relief to the Dissenters from the grievance under which they now suffered.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that what their Lordships had heard from the noble Earl who had moved the second reading was only another proof that the settlement of this most serious question should be undertaken by the authority of the Government. His noble Friend the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who introduced the subject the other night did great service by so doing; and the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) gratified the House and the country at large very much by his statement that the Government would undertake the settlement of the question. One word more. He would be presumptuous
  1090
  enough to give a word of advice to the clergy. He counselled them to listen seriously to what the present Government might say to them on this matter; for he very much doubted whether they would ever again have such good friends as they now had on the Ministerial bench.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that the Bill would never receive his assent—the clause which would disqualify the clergy from even a share in the management of the churchyards was especially objectionable. As the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), in his eloquent speech the other night, narrated some telling and amusing anecdotes, he (the Duke of Rutland) would follow the noble Earl's example so far as to illustrate his objection to this Bill by an anecdote relating to one whom he would not name. The person in question was an excellent man and gave good dinners, but he was by no means brilliant in conversation. He wished, however, to give a dinner at which should be assembled a number of the most celebrated wits of the town; but there was this difficulty—that he knew none of them. In his embarrassment he applied to a noble Lord, who said—"I will manage it; I will ask the company, which ought not to consist of more than twelve." Well, after a few days the noble Lord presented his friend with a list of the names of those whom he had asked. His friend, on running through the names, remarked, "These will do well; but you have made one omission which is easily rectified; you have left myself out." The noble Lord replied—"Oh, that is impossible; you would spoil all." "That is a hard case," observed his friend. "Not at all; don't you see you will have all the credit of entertaining those wits to dinner, and of paying for the dinner besides?" Such was the comfort given to the host, and similar comfort was offered to the clergy by the Bill now before their Lordships—everyone was to have an opinion in his own churchyard except the unfortunate clergyman. He would ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) whether the churchyards of England belonged to the Church of England or not? He believed they did:—if so, where was the difference between the Church and the churchyard—the only difference he could see was that one had a roof over

  1091
  it and the other was open to the air. The common law gave to Dissenters the right to enter the churchyard, and to hear the services and receive the ministrations of the Church of England; and the same common law gave them the right of interment in the churchyards, but it was on the same conditions, that the churchyards were open to the members of the Church of England. He was glad, however, that the Government proposed to consider the whole subject; and he trusted that in any measures they might introduce they would be careful to keep inviolate the churchyards of the country. He believed that the Dissenters suffered under no grievance—some hardships there might be; but the Dissenters were well able to provide graveyards for themselves. He believed that the great mass of them were not sensible of any hardship, and that this agitation was got up by a small band of persons, some of whom were of no religion, partly with a view of vexing the members of the Church, and some with the view of overthrowing it altogether. Therefore he hoped that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Episcopal Bench would yield to these demands.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had now left the House, had spoken to the clergy in a somewhat minatory tone—he had told them solemnly to receive the counsel of the Government, lest they should never have a similar favourable chance. He (the Bishop of Oxford) hoped the clergy would receive good counsel coming from any Government, and should be sorry to think them incapable of accepting good counsel on this long-vexed subject; and he thought they had shown a decided disposition to entertain the subject of the law of burial, to which great prominence had been given in the present Session of Parliament. But he appealed to their Lordships to say whether the clergy had had fair play in this matter. Had any really practical plan ever been proposed for their adoption? Sometimes the clergy were spoken of as if they had stolen a march upon the English people, and had somehow obtained, to their prejudice, possession of the churchyards. But this was certainly contrary to the fact. It should be remembered that neither Parliament
  1092
  nor the State had ever provided churchyards in any parish in England. This Bill, for the first time in the history of England, would enact that a parish should be obliged to provide its own burial ground. At this moment, if, for example, a burial ground on the coast were swept away by the encroachments of the sea, there was no law to compel the people of the parish to provide another burial ground. Rights of interment were freely spoken of; but Englishmen as such had no right to a place of interment. Churchyards had been provided ages ago by pious laymen—usually the lords of manors—under the advice of the clergy, and therefore it was unfair to charge the clergy with having gained possession of the churchyards to the exclusion of others who had an equal right to them. He trusted that when the clergy had any proposal put before them they would listen to it—not because it was made by the Government, but because their own feelings would teach them to show kindness to their neighbours and manifest the large and generous charity of the Church towards all mankind.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not have spoken had not the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) made a direct appeal to him on the points of law, whether the churchyards belonged to the Church of England. In answer, he would first of all ask the noble Duke whether the Church of England as a whole was, by law, the owner of any property at all? He believed not. Next, he believed the fee of the churchyard was vested in the clergyman of the parish, to hold in trust for the whole parish, under conditions prescribed by the common and ecclesiastical law.
  LORD HOUGHTONwas strongly in favour of a settlement of the question. It was one on which the Dissenters felt strongly; and Churchmen could not be surprised at this, remembering that burial services and interments in particular places had given rise to much warm feeling in this and other countries on the part of Churchmen and Roman Catholics, as well as Dissenters. The fear that the churchyards were likely to be "desecrated" ought to be removed by the consideration that in all our large cemeteries, where the greater part of the dead were now interred the burial service was performed by Dissenting

  1093
  ministers of all denominations; yet he was not aware of a single complaint of indecency or indecorum; and this afforded a strong presumption that they might be trusted to perform the service in country churchyards. In the course of his literary life it had happened to him to deliver two funeral addresses over the graves of literary men; and he trusted that nothing unbecoming or unsuitable to the solemnity of the occasion had been said either by himself or others at such times—on the contrary, he thought, they had promoted good and amiable feelings. With these analogies the present question might be decided in a simple manner, and in no spirit of antagonism to any body of Dissenters whatever.
  LORD DYNEVOR: As an incumbent of nearly 50 years' standing, may I be allowed to make a few remarks? I was early led to act in a friendly manner towards Dissenters. Two persons from whom I received the greatest respect when I first went to the parish which I still hold, were two venerable Dissenting ministers. I remember walking at the head of a corpse with one of them, when he said, "I have been 40 years in the wilderness," meaning he had been a minister therefor 40 years. About the same time I became acquainted with several members of the Society of Friends, whom I much esteemed. About seven years ago I went down to live part of the year in South Wales, and there I found the benefit of having been always on good terms with the Dissenters, for almost all the people about me were Dissenters; quite eight out of 10 in the rural parts. I cannot indeed say that I approve of the noble Earl's Bill. I should not like to be left out in the cold, and I believe that the clergyman might still remain in his present position with regard to the churchyards, and yet that Dissenting ministers might be allowed to bury their own people in our churchyards without anything irreverent or unbecoming occurring. There are four bodies of Dissenters in my own parish in Gloucestershire; two have burial-grounds, two have not. I should have no objection to allow the ministers of those denominations to perform funeral rites over their own people. I know them, and have confidence in them all that there would be nothing unbecoming the solemnity of the occa-
  1094
  sion. I think it is a matter for grave consideration that the refusal to allow Dissenting ministers to officiate implies that they are not fit to be trusted. I believe it is this which stirs them so deeply at the present time. Thousands of them are officiating every Sunday in their own chapels; they preach, they perform funeral services in their own graveyards and in cemeteries, and yet they cannot be trusted to do so in our churchyards. The question has now assumed graver proportions, and the Wesleyans, who have always been most friendly to the Church of England, are being alienated from her. I will not now say what has been the cause of this, but it is the fact. About three years ago, I asked a Wesleyan minister what he thought of the Burial question. "Oh," he said, "we do not move in it; we are quite satisfied with things as they are." And it is the case that in Wales there are hardly any burial-grounds attached to their chapels, because they were content with the Church of England service, but it is not so now. A case occurred the other day in Forest of Dean, when the circuit minister asked permission to officiate at the funeral of a Wesleyan. It was refused, and the vicar had not legal power to grant permission. But what the Wesleyans complain of is, that the curate allowed an official of the Order of Foresters to read a kind of service at the grave. I would mention one or two cases to show how persons feel on this subject. A man asked the clergyman of my parish in Wales to be allowed to be buried in a particular spot. It was represented to him that the part was very full. "Oh," he said, "I hope you will allow it, for my family have been buried there for 300 years." Again, an old firm Churchman was asked to sign a petition against the Burial Bill. He said, "I cannot now, for I wish to do as I would be done by, and I should like to be buried near my own people. Besides," he said, "I am getting old, and I should like to draw nearer to the Dissenters before I die." What I desire is, that concessions should be made to Dissenters without injury to the Church of England. We cannot ignore the Nonconformists. Look at their missionary operations. The Wesleyans collect near £180,000—more than the Propagation Society does. The London Missionary Society collects above £100,000; the Baptist, above

  1095
  £58,000; and the Primitive Methodist, £12,000. Ought men who are doing all this to be disregarded when, having baptized their people, administered the Holy Communion to them, attended them on their sick-bed, they asked to be allowed to offer a prayer or give an address at their graves? The Church of England will never suffer from pursuing a conciliatory course, and conceding what may be called a just claim. I am glad to hear Her Majesty's Government intend to take the subject into consideration. It cannot be advanced by private Members. It is an open sore injurious to the Church and religion in this country, and the sooner it is stayed the better. I think also our burial laws require revision, and that the clergy ought not to be compelled to use our present service over persons of whom no charitable hope can be entertained. I have myself had the pain of reading the Burial Service over a person who did not believe in a future state. We know what scandal occurred at Cowley, where the people broke into the Church, and what a painful scene occurred at the funeral of Baron Pigott.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not detain their Lordships, as in the former debate on this subject he had offered some remarks on what he considered was the purport of the Bill. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) now stated that he did not anticipate there would be any desire to proceed with the Bill; and, in accordance with the hint thrown out by the noble Earl, he would content himself by simply asking their Lordships to read the Bill a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—BRAKES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, that two years ago, on the Motion of a noble Earl (Earl de la Warr), a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of railway accidents, and
  1096
  perhaps, considering the magnitude of the inquiry, we must not be astonished that the Commission had not yet reported. It appeared, however, very desirable that the Commissioners should, with as little delay as possible, give the public the benefit of their opinions on the subject of continuous brakes. In the month of June last several of the leading railway companies, at great expense and inconvenience, conducted for the Commission a series of experiments which extended over a week. On that occasion 10 or 11 forms of brakes were submitted to the tests that were applied; but, up to this time, not a single word had been published by the Railway Accidents Commission as to the results of the experiments. No doubt a continuous brake was a valuable appliance for the prevention of railway accidents, and some companies had adopted it to a certain extent; but it could hardly be expected that pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission the companies would go to the very considerable expense of applying continuous brakes to all their rolling-stock. The Great Northern Railway Company were trying Smith's vacuum brake; but the application of it cost £50 in the case of an engine and £15 for every vehicle, and, therefore, the adoption of the brake for every engine and carriage would involve a very serious outlay. He was under the impression that it would be very desirable that a uniform brake should be adopted by all railway companies in the United Kingdom. Every day "through" carriages were run from London to Inverness and Aberdeen, passing over the systems of four or five different companies, and if one adopted Smith's vacuum brake, another Westinghouse's, and a third the chain brake, great confusion would arise in the management of through trains. He thought he had stated enough to justify him in putting the Question of which he had given Notice; and he would, therefore, ask the noble Earl sitting behind him (the Earl of Aberdeen), as the present Chairman of the Railway Commission, Whether, with reference to the experiments upon various descriptions of continuous brakes provided for them by a number of the leading railway companies in June, 1875, the Royal Commissioners upon railway accidents intend to recommend any particular

  1097
  brake for adoption by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom?
  LORD HOUGHTONdesired to ask the noble Chairman of the Royal Commission, Whether there was any prospect of the conclusion of the important labours of the Commission, by which the railway interest might be seriously affected? Before the appointment of the Commission many serious accidents had occurred, and it was hoped that the Commission might be able to make suggestions by which a recurrence of such accidents might be prevented. The public and the railway world had anxiously waited for such counsel and advice as the Commission might be able to give; but two years had elapsed without the satisfaction of that anxiety. Doubts were expressed at the time as to the utility of appointing a Commission at all, and whether any practical good would come of it, and those doubts seemed to derive some confirmation from the long delay which had occurred in the making of a Report; which delay suggested that the Commission had had great difficulty in coming to any conclusion, and that, after all, the question of preventing railway accidents must remain much as it stood before the appointment of the Commission.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I should have been glad to give an answer to the Question of the noble Lord near me, were it not for the obvious consideration that since it is the business of a Royal Commission to present the results of their investigations in the form of a humble Report to the Queen, it would be not only premature, but irregular, if any statement were made in your Lordships' House for the purpose of disclosing any portion of the probable contents of that Report. As to the experiments to which my noble Friend has referred, they were of an extensive character, the necessary materials and appliances being provided by an association of the leading railway companies in a very liberal and complete manner. The Commissioners, on their part, were enabled to secure the valuable services of two eminent engineers, assisted by a detachment of Sappers, under the command of officers of the Royal Engineers; so that everything had been conducted in the most accurate and reliable manner. The trials were public, they were witnessed by a very large
  1098
  number of gentlemen professionally connected with railways, and the general experiments were witnessed by the representatives of the Press, and appeared at the time in the newspapers. I am not aware that any statement or intimation was made by the Commissioners to the effect that those experiments were made for the purpose of enabling them to pronounce an opinion as to which of the various brakes was per se the best. In answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), I may add that, though every effort will be made to complete the Report, it is impossible to fix the exact date when it will be presented; the magnitude of the subject to which both the noble Lords have alluded making it necessary that the whole matter should be gone into with completeness.
  EARL COWPERsaid, the remarks of noble Lords impressed him with the advantage of leaving, as much as possible, the adoption of inventions and appliances for the prevention of railway accidents to the Railway Companies themselves. He thought if it had not been for the appointment of the Commission, it appeared probable that some effective form of brake would have been adopted before this by the Railway Companies. As it was, they were waiting for the Commission, fearful lest they should incur great expense and then find that they had all to do over again. He felt strongly that the great thing was to make railway directors feel that they were responsible for the safety of the public, and to leave them to adopt the best plans for preventing accidents. A great stimulus to railway directors to provide for the safety of passengers lay in the fact that they were liable to very heavy damages in the event of an accident.
  EARL DE LA WARRdesired to say, in answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), that some excuse must be made for the non-production of the Report of the Commission, for when it had almost come to the close of its labours in the taking of evidence, and was about to prepare the Report, the noble Chairman (the Duke of Buckingham) was appointed to a high office in India, and this led to very considerable delay; for the noble Chairman, in order to complete as far as possible the draft Report, took it with him to Port Saïd; and not

  1099
  only took the Report, but also took the Secretary, so that the Commission was for two or three months not only without its Report, but also without its Secretary.

DOVER HARBOUR.

  PETITION. QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLErose to present the Petition of Inhabitants of Dover of which he had given Notice. It was a Petition from the owners of property in Dover, numerously signed—indeed, no Petition could more completely represent all classes and all political parties in that town. It urged on the Government the pressing necessity of meeting the rapidly increasing traffic between Dover and the Continent; it gave a correct history of the last attempts at legislation, and prayed their Lordships' House to express such an opinion as would induce Her Majesty's Government to obtain powers to construct at an early date such an extended harbour at Dover as would provide for the naval and military requirements of the country, and afford ample accommodation for the rapidly increasing traffic between Dover and the Continent. Their Lordships might look with some suspicion on representations which might be biased by local interests; he would therefore add a few words to show that the Imperial grounds which they alleged, both for times of peace and for war, were not to be doubted. He would not enter into antiquarian or historical details, or ask why hundreds of years ago Dover was called "Clavis Regni;" or why £80,000 was spent on it by Henry VIII., and further large sums by Queen Elizaboth. James I., in his charter to the town, spoke of it as "for many ages a most noted and famous port and harbour," the ruin of which "would be the greatest damage and loss to this kingdom." Charles II. ascribed his successes at sea to his ships using Dover harbour to refit and revictual. Sir Walter Raleigh, in his Memorial of Queen Elizabeth, said:—
  "No promontory, town, or haven in Christendom is so placed by nature and situation, both to gratify friends and to annoy enemies, as this town of Dover; no place is so settled to receive and deliver intelligence for all matters and actions in Europe from time to time; nor is there in the whole circuit of this famous island any port either in respect of security or defence,
  1100
  or of traffic or intercourse, more convenient, needful, or rather of necessity to be regarded, than this of Dover, situated on a promontory next fronting a puissant foreign King, and in the very straight, passage, and intercourse of almost all the shipping in Christendom. And of that our renowned King, your Majesty's father (Henry VIII), found how necessary it was to make a haven at Dover (when Sandwich, Rye, Camber, and others were good havens, and Calais also was then in his possession), and yet spared not to bestow of his treasure so great a mass in building that pier, which then secured a probable means to perform the same, how much more is the same now needful; or rather of necessity (those good havens being extremely decayed), no safe harbour being left in all the coast almost between Portsmouth and Yarmouth. Seeing, then, it hath pleased God to give unto this realm such a situation for a port and town, is all Christendom hath not the like, and endowed the same with all commodities both by land and sea that can be wished, methinks there remaineth no other deliberation in this case, but how most sufficiently, and, with greatest perfection possible, most speedily the same may be accomplished."
  He believed that every line of that was as true at the present moment as when it was originally written—only Dover had become the more important from the invention and improvements of steam. The subject had been inquired into at various times, from 1836 downwards, by Committees and Commissions. In 1840 the Commission appointed to survey the South-Eastern Harbours reported—
  "The situation which appears to us to be of the greatest importance, and at the same time offers the most eligible position for a deep water harbour, is Dover Bay. Independently of its proximity to the Continent, this bay possesses considerable advantages."
  The Commissioners of 1844 in their Report said—
  "Dover, situated at a distance of only four and a half miles from the Goodwin Sands, and standing out favourably to protect the navigation of the narrow seas, is naturally the situation, for a squadron of ships of war. Its value, in a military point of view, is undoubted; but the construction of a harbour of refuge there is, in our opinion, indispensable to give to Dover that efficiency as a naval station which is necessary in order to provide for the security of this part of the coast and the protection of trade. The Commission cannot close their Report without expressing in the strongest terms their unanimous opinion and entire conviction that measures are indispensably necessary to give to the south-eastern frontier of the kingdom means and facilities which it does not now possess for powerful naval protection. Without any except tidal harbours along the whole coast between Portsmouth and the Thames, and none accessible to large steamers, there is now, when steam

  1101
  Points to such great changes in maritime affairs, an imperative necessity for supplying by artificial means the want of harbours throughout the narrow part of the Channel."
  There were few of their Lordships who were not aware of the miserable accommodation which now existed for the important traffic between Dover and the Continent. During the last seven years the Harbour Board had made several attempts, in addition to those proposed by others, to remedy this great deficiency. In July, 1872, the Board made an agreement with the two railway companies to construct a water station for Continental traffic at a cost of £200,000. In the autumn he (Earl Granville) learnt that their Bill would be objected to by the Government Departments on the same grounds as on former occasions—namely, that it might interfere with the larger plans which were supposed to be under consideration. He brought the matter before his Colleagues, and represented that the position of the Government was untenable—that it could not continue indefinitely this dog-in-the-manger policy, obstructing all proposed improvements, without moving one step in proposing a plan of its own. The result was that a Committee of the Cabinet was formed, consisting of the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and himself, who most carefully investigated the subject. They commissioned Sir Andrew Clarke, R.E., of the Admiralty, and Sir John Hawkshaw to report on a larger harbour. After considerable negotiation with the Harbour Board and the Railway Companies this scheme was adopted, the Harbour Board dropped their Bill and obtained a vote of £10,000 towards the preliminary expenses of the works. In November, 1873, the Harbour Board gave the necessary notices. A change of Government occurred, and their successors very reasonably requested the Harbour Board to drop their Bill, as they had not had time to consider the question. By this time the Harbour Board was nearly £1,500 out of pocket. In 1875, after 12 months' consideration, the Government themselves promoted a Bill to carry out the same plans. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Rylands and others. Some on the ground of economy, but by more on account of the plan not being
  1102
  sufficiently matured. The second reading was carried, and the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. What was the evidence given before that Committee? The Duke of Cambridge said—
  "I do not know of any other part of the Channel so important as regards defence as Dover. The plan commends itself as an advisable mode of enlarging the harbour accommodation of Dover. The position of Dover, being, as it is, in the narrowest part of the Channel, I look upon as of the greatest possible importance. There is no harbour of any importance between Portsmouth and quite the North of England, with the exception of Sheerness, and you can hardly call that a harbour, but rather the mouth of the Thames; but with that exception there is no other harbour on the coast of any magnitude excepting Dover. The Duke of Wellington always considered Dover of the greatest importance. The military works at Dover are very important and extensive. I look upon it that there is no scheme so important as the one before the Committee. Quite irrespective of any commercial question, it would be desirable to carry out the works at Dover now. But if I were asked if it is an important point of communication on general principles between this country and the Continent, I conceive, on that ground alone, there would be great importance attached to it, quite independent of any strategical ground. There is another great advantage at Dover, that there will be no outlay of public money required for the protection of the proposed harbour. A harbour without works would be valueless. The two best stations we have in the country are Portland and this new harbour at Dover. I consider the advantage of Dover very great, from the great facility of concentrating troops by railway from any part of England."
  Colonel Charles Nugent, R.E., Deputy Director of Works, gave the following evidence:—
  "It is geographically the most important point in Great Britain for having a military harbour. The fortifications at Dover would command the whole of the harbour."
  In a confidential Report of the Duke of Wellington in 1843 the Duke particularly recommended Dover as a spot for a harbour of refuge, and as a salient military spot in connection therewith. Major-General Collins on, R.E., commanding for several years the South-Eastern District, gave this evidence—
  "Dover is an eminently advantageous point for the embarcation of troops and stores….Very extensive accommodation for this purpose is wanted beyond that which now exists….Dover is the most important strategical point for naval and military operations in the kingdom….I think it is really absolutely necessary for strategic purposes and for military operations."
  Sir Alexander Milne, First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, gave this evidence—

  1103
  "I consider the position of Dover a very important one connected with naval affairs. In case of any operations of a warlike nature, it will become a necessity to have coal in some position in the neighbourhood of Dover. There is no place better suited for it than a harbour at Dover. I attach importance to it as a position for the embarcation of troops. There is no position more central or better adapted for the embarcation of troops than at the end of two railways connected with the interior of England. It is an absolute necessity that this country should have a harbour in that position, that our fleet may have the means of coaling, and that small vessels that are not able to keep the sea in the Downs in very heavy weather should have a place where they can be concentrated."
  The evidence of Captain Evans, Hydrographer to the Admiralty, agreed with that of Sir Alexander Milne. Colonel Pasley, R.E., Director of Works at the Admiralty, said—
  "I consider it of the utmost importance to the country that the harbour should be provided at Dover. Between Portsmouth and Sheerness there is at present no place where the fleet can coal, and there ought to be a place where the fleet can coal, and Dover being in the narrowest part of the Channel, and at the same time close both to the German Ocean and to the English Channel, is a most important point for the fleet to rendezvous if there be any danger of invasion, and in order that the Fleet may rendezvous there and be there, it is absolutely necessary that a place of coaling should exist. This is a necessity of modern growth. Now, as the Navy consists almost exclusively of steamships, it has become a primary necessity that facilities for coaling should exist. The importance of Dover has accordingly grown very greatly as compared with what it was in those times. If a harbour were to be made anywhere in the neighbourhood, you would have to start afresh and construct fortifications, which at Dover you have already done. At present there is no place where a large force could be embarked in a short time—absolutely none."
  Sir John Hawkshaw gave strong evidence as to the feasibility of the plan, of his confidence in the moderate character of the estimates, and of the almost certainty of the estimated increase of traffic. With regard to the last point, he said that engineers had made mistakes as to the cost of their works—an error which, probably, it did not require Sir John's high authority to convince their Lordships—but that he had never known an instance when, with reference to the probable growth of traffic, they had been large enough in their estimates. Mr. Druce, another eminent Civil Engineer, with, special experience, corroborated Sir John Hawkshaw's evidence. Mr. W. H.
  1104
  Smith, Secretary of the Treasury, said—
  "We inherited the scheme from our predecessors. We found it in the form of a Bill last year, and it was delayed in order that the present Government might give it a more full consideration before they committed themselves to it….The Treasury would not have assented to the scheme—I am speaking of the present Treasury—unless it had felt that there were public grounds, grounds of national interest, which justified the scheme as a whole."
  After hearing this evidence, what did the Committee report?—
  "The evidence adduced before them leaves no room to doubt that, in the case of this country being obliged to engage in warlike operations, the proposed harbour would be of the greatest value and importance, both in a naval and military point of view. At the present moment, it may be said that there is no place between Sheerness and Portsmouth at which vessels of Her Majesty's Navy can obtain a supply of coal if required. The Downs are, no doubt, an admirable naval station, both in point of security and convenience of position, but coaling there would have to be carried on from sea-going vessels or floating depôts, which in time of war would be exposed to attack by the enemy, unless protected by works which at present do not exist. If the proposed harbour is successfully constructed, iron-clads of the largest class can be moored alongside the existing Admiralty Pier, or the Eastern Pier, if modified with that view; coals from any part of England or Wales may be brought by railway in trucks direct to the side of vessels, and shipped with facility, safety, and despatch. In a military point of view, the advantages of the proposed harbour in time of war are not less apparent. Hitherto no proper facilities have been provided either at Woolwich, Chatham, or Sheerness for the embarcation of troops, while at Portsmouth the length of wharf in the dockyard is quite insufficient, and in time of war would probably be required by the Admiralty for naval purposes. On the other hand, Dover is in communication by two railways with the military stations of Canterbury, Maidstone, Sheerness, Chatham, Woolwich, London, Aldershot, Portsmouth, and Shorncliffe; and, as the lines of rail come down to the pier, alongside of which the transports would be lying, a very short time would suffice for the embarcation of a large force. To these considerations must be added the important fact that the proposed harbour will be under protection of great military works, which it would be necessary to provide in any other position where a harbour for naval and military purposes could be constructed. With regard to its capabilities as a harbour of refuge, the Committee, while of opinion that some advantageis likely to be derived by the commercial marine in this respect, yet do not wish to lay too much stress upon this advantage, and were that the only object in view would not feel justified in recommending its construction. Lastly, with regard to the advantage of the proposed harbour, with regard to Channel communication, there is no doubt that the convenience of embarking and disembarking in any weather in the smooth water of

  1105
  a sheltered harbour is of great public importance. That this is fully appreciated by the great companies which carry the postal and passenger traffic from the port of Dover to the Continent, is sufficiently evidenced by the proposals which have in past years been made by them for the construction of a smaller harbour specially designed for that purpose. In conclusion, the Committee desire to draw the attention of the House to the evidence which has been submitted to them, and by which they have been much impressed, to the effect that a considerably increased extent of deep water space might be secured by a slight modification of the present designs, at an increased cost of moderate amount. It appears, however, to the Committee that it would be beyond their functions to recommend such an increase of expenditure, and they therefore content themselves with bringing the evidence referred to specially to the notice of the House."
  The Bill was dropped, and in answer to a Question from him, the Duke of Richmond said—
  "With regard to the intention of the Government in the matter, he might state that they, after reading the Report of the Committee to the effect that larger works were advisable, and finding that these larger works would cost more money than the tolls would readily cover, thought it better to withdraw the Bill for the present Session in order that they might in the autumn thoroughly sift and digest the evidence, and prepare a plan to submit to Parliament next Session. In making this statement he did not pledge the Government to any particular scheme, but wished to show their Lordships that the Bill was not withdrawn with any view of shelving the matter in any way whatever."—[3 Hansard, ccxxv. 1367.]
  Believing the Government intended to proceed with the Bill in the next Session the Harbour Board took no action prior to November, 1875; when on the 10th of that month a letter was received from the Board of Trade stating that the Government had decided not to proceed with the Bill next—that was, this—Session. The delay of the Government in communicating their intention prevented the Board taking any step in the matter. He was sure it was not an intentional want of courtesy, but the inconvenience was not the less. After all that had passed, it would seem as if it was a money difficulty, and increased taxation showed how pressing that money difficulty was. He was the last person to undervalue economy; he belonged to a Government which was supposed to have pushed that virtue too far, and yet, after full deliberation, they resolved that the enlargement of Dover Harbour was a necessity in peace and in war. He was certain that Her Majesty's present Go-
  1106
  vernment would not raise the objection of economy in any case where State necessity justified expenditure. The expenditure on the shares of the Suez Canal was justified solely on the necessity of securing the shortest of three routes to India for our commerce and our troops. But surely if that were a necessity—and it was generally admitted to be an advantage—it was, at least, an equal necessity to improve our means of communication with the Continent of Europe in time of peace, and to do that which all the naval and military authorities said was essential, not only for sending out our troops from home, but for the purpose of defence from invasion, and no one would, he presumed, say that the chance of a due pecuniary return was less for the improvement of Dover Harbour than for the purchase of the shares. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to give some explicit assurance on this question.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it was very natural that his noble Friend, from his official connection with that part of the country and his position as Chairman of the Harbour Board, should put the Question he had just put, present a Petition, and ask for information on this subject. He could assure his noble Friend that the last thing he would think of would be to decry the Petition which he stated to have been so numerously and respectably signed, or to suggest that the persons who had signed it were not acting in a bonâ fide way, or that they did not believe the allegations set forth in it. Neither did he rise to undervalue the importance of the harbour of Dover, whether in a strategical, national, or commercial point of view. He accepted the high authorities which his noble Friend had quoted, from His Royal Highness the illustrious Duke the Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief, down to Sir Walter Raleigh. He was satisfied with the views expressed by the present illustrious Commander-in-Chief and by the late Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington, either of whom would have been sufficient for him, and his noble Friend need not have travelled so far back as the worthy Knight of the time of Elizabeth. His noble Friend had left him very little to say—he had with such perfect accuracy described the whole course which the late Government had

  1107
  taken on this subject, the Bill which had been introduced, and the position in which Her Majesty's Government found themselves with respect to that Bill during the last Session. Her Majesty's Government at that time thought it advisable that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament. In consequence of the recommendations of that Committee, and what occurred before it, it was not thought advisable to proceed with the Bill. It was therefore withdrawn, and the Government intended to consider the whole matter during the last autumn. They did consider it; but, as the noble Earl would admit, the subject was one of very high importance, of considerable gravity, and required very great consideration. The Government were not able during the autumn to arrive at a conclusion in time to give the notices which would have been required in accordance with Parliamentary practice. The undertaking also was very large, and one which required a very considerable outlay from the public funds; there was a very important person to be convinced—a person no less important in this Government than in the last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the result was that it was not found possible to proceed with so large a scheme during the present Session of Parliament. He was not going to follow his noble Friend into an inquiry whether it was as important from a commercial point of view to improve Dover Harbour as it was to purchase the Suez Canal shares. He would content himself with saying that the Government were perfectly satisfied that Dover Harbour was of very great value from a national point of view. Mr. Smith, indeed, said so in the course of his evidence. The matter was still under the consideration of the Government; but the increased Estimates for the Army and Navy during the present year had rendered it impossible for them to proceed during the present year with a work which must naturally be attended with expense.
  THE DUKE OE CAMBRIDGEsaid, he was glad to gather from the answer of the noble Duke that the Government were perfectly alive to the importance of Dover; and, as his opinion had been referred to, he wished to take the opportunity of stating that he adhered to every word of what he had expressed on
  1108
  a previous occasion. It was not that he attached much importance to his own views, but they were the views of the Duke of Wellington and of every military man who had considered the question. Difficulties might, no doubt, have arisen to prevent the works from being pushed on in the present year; but he hoped that, whenever it was possible to do so, these works might be undertaken, for they formed one of the most important military undertakings which could be carried out. We had a position there very capable of defence. A harbour might be formed such as could hardly be formed on any other part of the coast, yet there existed there no satisfactory means of embarking or disembarking troops. We were a great maritime nation; and, as the possibility of such requirements must be provided for, it was of national importance that no time should be lost in making Dover available for military and naval purposes.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that having had charge of the Bill of the late Government on this subject in the other House, he had listened with some anxiety to the answer of the noble Duke. He was glad to hear that the Government had not changed their minds as to the national gravity of this question. The reasons given by the noble Duke for not doing anything in the present year were not convincing, but he hoped that this year's delay would be the last, and that next year they would undertake the completion of this great national work. One peculiarity of the case already mentioned by his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was that a large sum of public money had already been spent at Dover both in the water and on the land. He would not say that this expenditure was wasted; but in the present state of the works it brought in a very inadequate return. A great fortress had teen placed there to command and protect the harbour; was it not worth while, then, even at some considerable cost, for the country to complete what it had begun, and make Dover Harbour really safe and adequate for such purposes as the coaling of Her Majesty's ships in time of war, and generally as a naval station, while at the same time they thereby greatly promoted the convenience and safety of the cross-Channel traffic? While at the Board

  1109
  of Trade he had regretted that it was necessary to refuse the assent of the Government, and thus put a stop to plans for the improvement of the Channel intercommunication, because they might stand in the way of the plans of the Government and injure Dover as a naval harbour. He trusted that after the present year the works would be no longer postponed.
  THE EARL OR FEVERSHAMsaid, that Dover was, no doubt, an important harbour; but he thought that, in considering the expediency of completing the works there, the Government should not lose sight of the larger question of harbours on the North-East coast. A Royal Commission appointed not many years ago to inquire into this subject reported in favour of Filey Bay as a harbour of refuge, but no action had ever been taken by any Government to carry out this recommendation, although every year a great loss of life occurred on this coast. Nor was there a harbour of defence on the east coast; and before coming to any decision upon the completion of expensive works at any one point of the coast the Government should take into consideration the whole question of harbour refuge and defence upon the east coast.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that Dover stood on a different footing from other harbours. He rose, however, to ask the noble Duke opposite for a more precise answer to his Question. The noble Duke said that the Government were alive to the importance of this subject. So had other Governments been, but nothing had been done. As Chairman of the Harbour Board at Dover, he wished to know what the Government proposed to do. As the noble Duke knew, this Board had powers to raise £500,000 for improving and enlarging the harbour, but they could not act without the permission of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had admitted the gravity of the question, and the great importance of Dover Harbour. The Government also had shown their desire to do something by taking up the Bill brought forward by their Predecessors. That Bill, it was true, had been withdrawn, but from no desire to stop the further progress of the works. He was not now, however, in a position
  1110
  to pledge the Government as to the exact course they would take next year on this subject.
  Petition to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.