Sitting of 13 March 1877

POST OFFICE—POSTMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the Postmaster General, If the rule understood to prevail in the General Post Office, whereby all offices and country postmasterships exceeding one hundred pounds in annual value were reserved by open competition for the promotion of deserving clerks and officers in the Post Office still exists; and, if so, if he will state to the House the circumstances under which the recent appointments to the postmasterships of Andover, Blandford, and Chichester were made in apparent disregard of that rule?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, the rule that postmasterships worth more than £120 a-year—not £100 a-year, as supposed by the hon. Member—should be filled by means of open competition among the clerks and other officers of the Department was still in force. The postmasterships at Andover and Blandford, mentioned in the Question, did not come under that rule, their value being under £120. To the Post Office at Chichester, he had appointed an officer who was not only well qualified and strongly recommended by the district surveyor, but who for some time had acted as postmaster. It might be well to add that a memorial signed virtually by the whole town was presented in favour of the person whom he had selected.

EGYPT—ABYSSINIA.—QUESTIONS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the raid recently made by Abyssinian troops at Massowah, was made in consequence of an Abyssinian sent by the King of Abyssinia with a letter to Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt having been seized at Massowah and drowned; and, whether, in revenge, his escort, who had accompanied him, carried off in the raid Colonel Mitchell, an American officer attached to the Egyptian Staff?
MR. BOURKE: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be happy to learn

1851
that our Consul General in Egypt has reported to us by telegram that he has satisfied himself that the report alluded to is absolutely false, and that the murder of this individual never did take place. Colonel Gordon says he is quite sure if such a thing had occurred King John would have reported it either to him or the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships at Massowah; therefore, he is quite sure it did not take place.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Colonel Mitchell?
MR. BOURKE: We have heard nothing about Colonel Mitchell. My hon. Friend asks whether Colonel Mitchell's capture was not in consequence of the murder of this individual? We have sent a telegram asking for further information on the whole subject, and when a reply is received I shall lay it on the Table.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with his reply on Thursday last, the Foreign Office has instructed the British Consul General at Cairo to inquire of the Khedive what became of the Abyssinian Envoy last December?
MR. BOURKE: Yes; in accordance with the reply which I gave last Thursday, the Foreign Office have instructed Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt to make inquiries on this subject; and he has reported that there is no doubt whatever as to the safe return of the Envoy to Abyssinia. His return has been reported by Retif Pasha at Massowah, and has also been confirmed by the French Vice Consul at Massowah.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT—MEETINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House, a Return showing how many meetings of the Scotch Education Department occurred during the year 1876, and the names of those members of the Department who were present at each meeting?
VISCOUNT SANDON: The hon. Member asks me how often the Scotch Education Department met in 1876. I would remind him that the Duke of Richmond and Gordon and I, as Lord President of the Council and as Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, are
1852
members of the Scotch Education Department, and I hope I need hardly assure him that we were constantly meeting at Whitehall last year, and were frequently engaged in discussing and deciding upon matters connected with the administration of the Elementary Schools of Scotland. It has not been considered necessary, nor would it have been in accordance with usage, to summon, under ordinary circumstances, to Whitehall the other members of the Scotch Department; but other members of that Department have been consulted on details with which they were specially conversant, or when matters of general policy respecting Scotch Education have arisen. I fear I cannot give the hon. Member the statistics he desires, but I can promise him that he will in any case find two members of the Scotch Department—the Lord President and myself—at all times happy to receive him at Whitehall and to attend to any matters connected with the administration of Scotch Education which he wishes to bring before us.

PRISONS BILL—PRISON OFFICIALS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How it is proposed to provide for the governors and other gaol officials whose services will cease with the disestablished prisons on the Prisons Bill becoming Law?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the 32nd section of the Prisons Bill provided that the governors and officers of the discontinued prisons should be dealt with precisely in the same way as the officers and governors of those prisons which were discontinued under the Act of 1865—namely, they would be paid compensation out of local rates. No doubt the opportunity would be taken by a good many old officers connected with the continued prisons of resigning their posts; and, as far as possible, the officers of discontinued prisons would be absorbed in those gaols which might be continued.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND) ACT—BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL BOARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that

  1853
  the School Board of Birmingham have prohibited any teachers in their employment from giving religious teaching out of as well as during the school hours; and, whether any provision is made for the religious teaching of the 22,000 children on the books of the schools belonging to that School Board?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: My hon. Friend asks me an important Question. I must remind him that the Education Department, under the present law, is not concerned with the religious teaching of the children; and I, therefore, have no special means of giving the information asked for. A Return, however, which was ordered by the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. S. Lloyd), will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members, and will, I believe, give him the information desired.

FRANCE AND GERMANY—THE FRENCH FRONTIER FORTRESSES.—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any truth in the statement of the "Daily Telegraph" and "Standard" of the 12th inst. that Prince Bismarck has called upon the French Government to discontinue the construction of their frontier line of defensive fortresses, and that in compliance with his demands they have been obliged to abandon all attempts at protecting their frontiers and give up their scheme for fortifying Paris?
MR. BOURKE: There is no information whatever at the Foreign Office on this subject.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—LEITRIM.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can hold out any hopes that the telegraph system will soon be extended to several important places in the county of Leitrim which at present derive no benefit from the Telegraph Act of 1868?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I beg to say that I shall carefully consider the subject; but I am sorry to say I can hold out no hopes of the extensions in question being carried out, for there is no prospect of the receipts meeting the expenditure.

TURKEY—FURTHER PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, considering that the latest accounts of affairs in Bosnia and Bulgaria issued to the House are dated January 2nd and January 5th respectively, he will state how soon further Papers in reference to those provinces will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BOURKE: I stated a short time ago that it was the intention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to direct that the Papers upon this subject should be laid on the Table of the House. The Secretary of State has ordered further Papers to be prepared; they are printed, and I hope to be able to present them shortly after Easter.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE STEAMSHIP "PRINCE."—QUESTION.
MR. BURTasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the inquiry will be held, if it has not been already ordered, into the case of the steam ship "Prince," which foundered, with the loss of all hands, between Middlesbrough and Grangemouth in December last, and which vessel was loaded with more than 600 tons of pig iron, her gross registered tonnage being between 400 and 500 tons?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, the Prince foundered off the Tyne in December in a heavy gale, and as all hands on beard perished no inquiry could be instituted as to the cause of the disaster, except with reference to the leading and stowage of the cargo, which consisted of pig iron. Another Middlesbrough ship, the Agnes Wyllie, was lost about the same time, loaded also with pig iron. This case has just been concluded before the Wreck Commissioners, and the judgment given is that blame attached to no one. These cases, however, led the Board of Trade to inquire more generally into the system of loading and stowage of iron at Middlesbrough, and a correspondence has been going on with the shipowners of that port. The Prince was detained for overloading on a previous voyage in October, and made to lighten her cargo of iron to about 600 tons. There is no relation between the tonnage of a steamship and the number of tons of cargo

1855
she can carry. The one is a measure of 100 cubic feet capacity, the other of weight, and it is possible a ship of 400 or 500 gross registered tonnage, as the Prince, might be made to carry safely 600 tons of iron properly stowed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—SMALL-PDX HOSPITALS.—QUESTION.
LORD RICHARD GROSVENORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any information as to the number of cabs "setting down" patients at the small-pox hospitals within the metropolitan police districts during the last three months; and, whether it is true that a policeman is specially appointed to stand at the gate of small-pox hospitals to stop any cabs that have brought patients, and to have such cabs properly disinfected before they go out again to ply for hire?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have made inquiries of the police, and find there are four small-pox hospitals within the metropolitan police district—namely, at Highgate, Hampstead, Homerton, and Stockwell. The first named is a voluntary institution, and during the past three months no patients have been seen conveyed in cabs to that hospital. At Highgate invalid carriages belonging to the different parishes are in use. At Hampstead there has been no single instance during the present epidemic of a cab being used for carrying small-pox patients. At Homerton one case has occurred; the cab was disinfected by the police, and proceedings were taken against the offender for not informing the driver of the nature of the disease. Two instances have occurred at Stockwell. Both cabs were taken to the police-station and disinfected. In one case proceedings were taken, and the result was that the offender was fined £5. A constable is not specially stationed at the gates of the hospitals, but the porters have all strict orders to take down the number of any cab which appears with a patient in it, in order that the driver, and, if necessary, the hirer, may be brought to justice.

ARMY ESTIMATES—PLUMSTEAD COMMON.—QUESTION.
MR. BOORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the
1856
assurance he gave at the end of last Session, that the House should have an opportunity of considering the arrangements proposed with regard to the continuation, or otherwise, of the Plum-stead Common Lease, he will arrange that Vote 10 of the Army Estimates shall be taken at a sufficiently early date for that purpose?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he could not say when the Army Estimates would come on again, but he was anxious that they should be taken as early as possible, when the hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity he desired.

THE SUEZ CANAL—PILOTAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. D. JENKINSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will call the attention of the Directors representing Her Majesty's Government at the Board of the Suez Canal Company to the excessive rate charged for pilotage through the Canal, amounting in many cases to more than one franc per ton on the ship's registered tonnage, less than one-fifth of which is paid to the pilots employed by the Company; and, if Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to relieve British shipping from this charge?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he found that under the 6th clause of the arrangements regulating the charges to be made vessels were not charged according to their tonnage, but according to their draught of water. If a vessel happened to be of small tonnage, but of a large draught of water she had to pay a heavy sum per ton; whereas if she was of large tonnage and of comparatively small draught of water, she was charged much less. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that in many cases vessels were charged for pilotage more than a franc per ton on their registered tonnage, was hardly borne out by the facts of the case, the sum charged being 70 centimes per ton. With regard to the application of the pilotage rates it expressly included remuneration for the maintenance of sidings, telegraphy, watchmen, signals, and other means established by the Company to ensure the safety and good navigation of the vessels that passed through the Canal. Under these

  1857
  circumstances, he thought it was hardly a case which justified Her Majesty's Government using their influence to relieve British shipping from this charge.

GERMAN SUBJECTS IN ENGLAND-THE GERMAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If those subjects of the Emperor of Germany residing in this country who have served a portion only of their military time in the German Army, and who are still liable to be recalled to their regiments, are treated differently to other foreign residents by the Laws or the Government of this country; and, if he can give any information as to the probable number of this class from any papers accessible to the Home Office; and, if not, can such information be obtained by the Government through our embassy at Berlin?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had no information to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the subject. Any of these persons were at liberty to come here when they liked, to stay as long as they liked, and to go away when they liked. They enjoyed full protection of the law while they were here, and he had no means of knowing whether they were bound to serve the Emperor of Germany or not on their return. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, however, he had no doubt, make any inquiries which the hon. and gallant Gentleman might desire on the point.

THE TICHBORNE CASETHE QUEEN v. CASTRO—WITNESSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his statement that evidence on behalf of a convict submitted for the opinion of the Judges, if it be such as might have been produced at the trial, is to be understood as a rule adopted by the right honourable Gentleman in all cases of appeal to him for inquiry or mitigation of penalties, or whether it is a rule adopted specially as to the Tichborne claimant; and, whether he considers such rule applicable to the evidence of Charles Orton, a witness retained on the
  1858
  part of the prosecution, but not called at the trial?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me—I would just remark that I have been some time engaged in endeavouring to find out which is the nominative case and which is the verb in the Question. But passing by that—there is no rule of any sort or kind such as that the Question suggests. All the evidence in each case is brought before the Secretary of State, who forms his judgment upon it according to its merit. There being no such rule, it cannot apply to the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

TURKEY—PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he is able to give the House any further information respecting the progress of the negotiations with Russia and the other European Powers with reference to the affairs of Turkey? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer the Question now I shall be happy to defer it till Thursday.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid all I can say at the present time is that a communication has been addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Russia, and that it is now under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot say more.

CRIMINAL LAW—COSTS IN POACHING CASES—LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COLERIDGE.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR CHARLES LEGARD: I wish, with the kind indulgence of the House, to say a few words with regard to the Notice of Motion which I gave the other day after the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in reference to Lord Coleridge. It will be in the recollection of the House that the learned Judge had laid down a doctrine at the Durham Assizes—["Order!"] I will not occupy the attention of the House more than a few minutes. It consequently seemed to me, and to many other hon. Members, that this doctrine required some explanation—["Order!"]

1859
I wish to make a personal explanation. I can only express my regret that Lord Coleridge should have considered me in any way discourteous; but I was not aware that it was customary to give private Notice of a Question to any one not being a Member of this House, the more especially as I gave public Notice of it, and it appeared in every London morning paper. I still more regret that the learned Judge did not receive the inquiry which I ventured to make in the same spirit of fairness and impartiality in which it was put. In his reply to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Lord Coleridge adhered to the law which he had laid down, and the observations which he had made, stating that he was not accountable for his acts to any Member of the House of Commons. When that answer was given I felt that, although I was a very young and humble Member of this House, I should be guilty of neglecting a, grave responsibility if I refrained from giving Notice that I should call attention to the doctrine laid down by the learned Judge and the language of his reply to this House. But, Sir, I now find that the only Motion I could make would be one of the most stringent character, and one which would be, in the estimation of those whose judgment I value most highly, and whose opinions I am bound to respect, rather stronger than the merits of the case demand. I have to thank the House for allowing me to make this explanation, and it only remains for me now to say that, under the circumstances, I do not intend to proceed with my Motion.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTIONS.
In reply to Colonel KINGSCOTE,
VISCOUNT SANDONsaid: We have no further account respecting the origin of the outbreak of cattle plague at Beelsby, near Great Grimsby, in Lincolnshire. We are expecting shortly to hear from the Inspector of the Privy Council, who is on the spot, and I will not fail to communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend. I regret very much to say that yesterday evening, after I answered the Question about the Lincolnshire outbreak, Mr. Alexander, a dairyman at Stepney, reported cattle plague to have appeared in his dairy, consisting of 130 cows. The Inspector
1860
having found the report to be correct, the affected animals, five in number, were at once destroyed. The remaining 125 are being slaughtered. This outbreak is the more to be deplored from the fact that Mr. Alexander is reported to have taken every possible precaution. He had kept his premises locked, and had made his men use disinfectants in all their communications with the animals.
MR. W. E. FORSTERinquired whether Stepney was within the metropolitan district round which a cordon had been drawn?
VISCOUNT SANDONreplied that it was within the limit.
The "Questions" having been gone through—

THE TICHBORNE CASE— THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—WITNESSES.
MR. WHALLEY: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross), in reply to my Question, said, very justly, that my Question as printed on the Paper is not grammatical or intelligible. That, Sir, is owing to the omission of certain words. I will, if necessary, conclude with a Motion; but, at any rate, I trust I may be permitted to make the Question intelligible, so that I may obtain from the right hon. Gentleman an answer somewhat more intelligible than that which I have received. I would venture to appeal to your indulgence, Sir, to make a short statement—
MR. SPEAKER: The Question that has been put by the hon. Member being, according to his own statement, not intelligible, it is open to him now to put it in an intelligible form to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. WHALLEY: The non-intelligibility of the Question arises from the omission in the print of certain words which were—or ought to have been—in the manuscript. The Question, Sir, is this—whether the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me two days since as to the practice of the Home Office in the discharge of its duty in criminal cases, is a general rule adopted by him in all cases, or whether it is a rule adopted by him in this particular case; that rule being distinctly stated by him in contradiction of what was said by him a year ago, to the effect that when evidence is brought before the Home Office on behalf of any person suffering

1861
from a conviction, it is not considered that he is justified in submitting it to the Judges by whom the convict or prisoner was tried, if it be such evidence as the prisoner could have produced on his trial. The hon. Member was proceeding to address some remarks to the House, when—
MR. SPEAKER said: I must request the hon. Member to put his Question according to the altered phraseology.
MR. WHALLEY: It is of some importance to know whether that is the rule of the Home Office. I would further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that the evidence of a man named Charles Orton, which has been laid before him on affidavit, together with the evidence of other members of that family—whether, under these circumstances—here, under the very droppings of this sanctuary of justice—this Charles Orton—
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member in asking a Question could not enter into a debate upon it.
MR. WHALLEY: I wish to know the reason that, although evidence has now been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and is evidence that the convict — ["Order, order!"] — might have been—["Order, order!"] Really, I do not know how to make myself intelligible. I think, if I may be permitted to get to the end of my statement, that it will be clear what I am about to state—that although under the rule as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the convict might have called this man, yet there was a very particular reason for not calling him—namely, that he was retained by the prosecution and was paid by the prosecution. ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I have repeatedly called upon the hon. Member to put his Question, and he has declined to do so. The Business of this House cannot be interrupted, and if any other hon. Member has any Question to ask, I call upon him to put it.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS RETAIL.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in rising to move—
  "That it is desirable to empower the Town Councils of Boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Acts to acquire compulsorily, on pay-
  1862
  ment of fair compensation, the existing interests in the Retail Sale of Intoxicating Drinks within their respective districts; and thereafter, if they see fit, to carry on the trade for the convenience of the inhabitants, but so that no individual shall have any interest in nor derive any profit from the sale,"
  said, it seemed to him to be an established fact that the English people were becoming impatient at the continued existence of intemperance, which was the plague-spot in our civilization. The popular feeling was naturally represented in that House, and found its fitting expression in the number of Bills on the subject that had been introduced this Session. In these circumstances, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with any statistics to show the magnitude of the evil he sought to remedy. The only question was, what remedy, if any, could be applied? Looking to the comparative failure of past legislation, he did not wonder that some persons had arrived at the conclusion that we could not expect any legislation to alter the social habits of the people, and that we must depend on moral suasion for the accomplishment of the object we all desired to attain. This was the view taken by the licensed vituallers themselves, as appeared from a resolution passed at one of their recent conferences, though their preference for moral suasion was coincident with the fact that while the moral suasion had been practised for more than 30 years it had never reduced the returns nor diminished the gains of a single person engaged in the trade. He feared that the evidence would not warrant us in believing that any better results would follow the progress of education than had followed the exercise of moral suasion. The Kingdom of Sweden was the most educated country in Europe, and yet till very recently Sweden enjoyed an unfortunate pre-eminence as the most drunken country in the world. And if there were now any change in her condition it was distinctly due to special legislation and not to any alteration in the character or amount of popular instruction. In this country, too, he found that the total number of children in average attendance at school had increased in the period over which the statistical abstract extended from 773,000 to 1,863,000. That was an increase of 140 per cent. During the same period the population had only increased

  1863
  by 20 per cent, while drunkenness had increased from 82,000 cases to 203,000 cases—or 147 per cent. From these figures he concluded that we had as yet no evidence to show that there were any causes at work which tended to the eradication of this great social vice, while we had many grounds for believing that it was constantly and steadily on the increase. The amount of spirits retained for consumption in this country had increased within a period of 15 years from 24,500,000 gallons to 42,000,000, or 75 per cent; of wine from 10,500,000 gallons to 17,250,000, or 65 per cent; and malt from 46,000,000 bushels to 63,000,000, being an increase of 37 per cent. Thus drinking had augmented out of all proportion to the natural increase in the population, and it was no strained conclusion to suppose that drunkenness had also increased in similar proportions. One fact was significant—in 1861 the number of persons upon whom a coroner's inquest returned a verdict of "Death from excessive drinking" was 199, but that number steadily increased, till in 1875 it amounted to 516, or 160 per cent. He was justified, therefore, in saying that drunkenness had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. So far, he hoped, the House was with him. His next position was that we ought not to assume too lightly that legislation could do nothing to affect the social habits of the people. In a past generation our fiscal legislation led to the substitution of the heavy wines of Spain and Portugal for the clarets and Burgundies which were till then drunk by the middle and upper classes; while the passing of the Beershop Act increased enormously the facilities for drinking, and was followed by a great increase of drunkenness among the population. In the 10 years following 1830 the consumption of malt used in brewing increased by 40 per cent, and during the same period the general totals of crime increased by nearly 50 per cent. Under such circumstances it became the duty of all of us to make some contribution, however humble, towards the solution of this problem, and the country would not, he thought, be satisfied that Parliament should rest with folded arms in the presence of this great evil, waiting for a change which was very slow in coming, and which
  1864
  many persons believed would never come at all unless assisted by legislation. There were many Bills before the House, and among temperance reformers, at least, there was a general consensus of opinion as to the direction towards which legislation should tend—namely, either by adding to the powers of local authorities for the control of the traffic, or by some general provisions for restricting and further limiting the facilities for obtaining drink. Now he recommended his Resolution to the friends of these various Bills, because it would secure with a promptitude and efficiency what no other proposal was likely to secure the object which the promoters of all these measures had in view. He did not claim any originality for his proposals. They had been discussed by Mr. Garth Marshall, of Leeds, and by Mr. Carnegie, of Scotland; they had been introduced by Earl Grey in "another place;" and the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther) had inserted similar provisions in a Bill which applied to Scotland. Two important principles, however, were contained in his Resolution which were not to be found in any of these Bills. In the first place, he made it an essential condition of his scheme that fair compensation should be awarded to existing interests. In his opinion, vested interests had now grown up which it would not be just to ignore. Now doubt this property was exceptional in its character, and was subject to all the incidents of legislation ejusdem generis as that by which it was at present affected; among which were the liability that the trade might be thrown absolutely open; but these incidents did not, he thought, destroy the claim of some compensation in this case. Secondly, his plan involved the exclusion of anything like private interest from the further conduct of this traffic. To this feature of the plan he attached much importance. Two hundred thousand licensed victuallers in this country were legitimately engaged in more or less successfully trying to increase their business. The result was seen in gin palaces blazing with gas, and decorated with a splendour which compared inversely with the squalor and misery of those who frequented those places; and when it was also seen that the old re spectable public houses were being transformed into spirit vaults and saloons,

  1865
  everybody must feel that this expenditure must have sufficient motive and that excessive drinking returned a sufficient dividend upon the investment thus made. Again, excessive competition almost forced the trade against their will to wink at abuses; while, on the other hand, the managers of a corporation acting on behalf of a community, with salaries independent of the amount of the sales of intoxicating drink, watched carefully by the ratepayers, and knowing that any proof of abuse would immediately cause the forfeiture of their appointments, would set their faces steadily against excess. It was said that the existing law contained sufficient provisions for the regulation of the traffic and the prevention of excess. These provisions, however, absolutely broke down in practice, and so it happened that in Birmingham, Liverpool, and other large towns, while there was an enormous number of persons convicted and punished for drunkenness, hardly any of the owners of public-houses were ever brought up for supplying them with drink. The House would see the reason why. The only means by which the owners could be reached would be by the employment of persons in plain clothes, a thing which would be repugnant to English feeling and which would lead in practice to grave objections. The only way, therefore, to secure the observance of existing regulations or of any which in future might be devised would be by making the interests of those who made the regulations and those who carried on the trade identical. Another most important result of the scheme would be that it would lead with absolute certainty to an immense reduction in the number of houses in which drink was sold. That would follow not only from moral and social, but from commercial and economic considerations. When we heard persons speaking of what they called free trade in liquor he was sometimes led to wonder whether they could be aware of the extent to which this supposed advantage already existed in all our large towns. Licences had been granted in times past with such freedom that they were already almost everywhere throughout the country in excess of the requirements of the people. In Birmingham there was 1 public-house to every 40 houses, and in considerable
  1866
  tracts of the working-class districts of the town these houses were placed so closely that the average distance between two of them was not quite 200 feet, which was probably less than the length of the House in which he was now speaking. In Liverpool a more astounding state of things prevailed. He had received a letter from a correspondent in that town, who informed him that there was a thoroughfare which extended from St. George's Hall to Kirk-dale, a mile and a-quarter in length, which contained 578 premises and shops, and of these 103, or more than one in six, were drink shops. To these shops there were 218 separate entrances—218 separate traps already baited for the unwary in the course of 20 minutes' walk. That was drinking made easy by the free trade system—a facilis descensus Averni—and where the way of destruction was so broad no one could be surprised that there were many who walked therein. Nor must the state of Birmingham and Liverpool be thought exceptional, for out of 70 large towns more than 50 had a larger proportion of licences to population, Southampton having 50 per cent more than Birmingham, and Bristol 50 per cent more than Liverpool. Half of these houses would be sufficient for every purpose, and he was confirmed in that view by finding that the provision made for the supply of bread, drapery, groceries, and butchers' meat was only one-third or one-fourth of the provision for the supply of drink. He felt certain that if the community were entrusted with the control of these drink shops, one-half of them would as a matter of course be immediately abandoned, and the remainder placed under strict control. And what would be the effect of this change upon drunkenness? Unfortunately, we had no experience to which we could appeal in this country. Comparisons between different towns would be entirely futile, because the circumstances of the towns varied so much. There was so much difference in the rate of wages, the nature of the trades, and in climate, which was a most important element, that anything like a useful contrast would be impossible. Even in Gothenburg the calculations were complicated by a great number of considerations, because during the period over which the system had extended there had been a great increase in the rate of

  1867
  wages, and there had been passed very stringent legislation affecting the country districts, which increased the amount of drunkenness in the town by the number of persons who came into Gothenburg on market-days, and made amends for their enforced abstinence outside by their indulgence within. But if the House would make allowance for these things, the experience of Gothenburg was very remarkable and suggestive. During the first few years after the adoption of the system the proportion of drunkards to the population was, according to the police statistics, reduced 50 per cent; and even now, after a time of unexampled prosperity, it was still 20 per cent less than in 1864. Taking a longer period, embracing times of adversity and prosperity, we found that the drunkenness during the 12 years, ending in 1875, averaged 50 per cent less than during the 12 preceding years, while during the same period in other towns where the system had not been in operation drunkenness had considerably increased. In Stockholm there had been an increase of 5 per cent, in Christiania, in Norway, an increase of more than 50 per cent. He had seen it stated in the circular to which he had already referred that the experiment at Gothenburg was not really successful, because, as shown by the statistics, there was more drunkenness in Gothenburg than in any English town. But if that were true, it did not in the least touch the fact that in Gothenburg drunkenness had very much decreased. We had great reason to doubt, however, that Gothenburg was more drunken than any English town. If he might trust his own experience and the evidence of his senses when he visited Gothenburg, the contrast would not be favourable to his own borough, although police statistics appeared to tend in that direction. He had come to the conclusion that for purposes of comparison police statistics were no guide at all. Last Saturday week, for instance, the total number of persons arrested for drunkenness in Birmingham and brought before the magistrates was 29. That was the total number debited to the town by the police statistics. But during three hours of the same Saturday night 35 public-houses selected in different parts of the town were watched by persons appointed for the purpose, and these persons reported that 9,351 males
  1868
  and 5,006 females came out of these 35 houses, of which number 662 males and 176 females, or a total of 838 persons, were drunk. Making every allowance for unconscious exaggeration and unintentional error, there still remained such a margin between these figures and the police statistics as would lead the House to regard the latter with considerable doubt. But, after all, the strongest evidence in favour of the Gothenburg system was its almost universal adoption in Sweden. He had seen it stated that the experiment had been adopted only in a single town under circumstances very different from what we had to deal with. On the contrary, in the 10 years following the commencement of the experiment, every town in Sweden with a population of above 5,000, except one, followed the example of Gothenburg, and recently Stockholm, the capital, a city of 140,000 inhabitants, had, by a resolution of its Town Council, with the assent of the Government, determined to put the plan in force. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the House would certainly be justified in assuming on the very best local evidence that the Swedes, at all events, were convinced that very great and important results had followed from the adoption of the system. The adoption of the system in England would be attended with another advantage which he thought, to a great extent, would be confined to this country. The price of spirits in Sweden was so low that there was no temptation to adulteration, but in England the liquor sold in the small beer-houses was mixed with deleterious ingredients intended to add to its intoxicating powers and promote thirst; and he was compelled to come to the conclusion that very much drunkenness was caused, not by the quantity, but by the bad quality of the drink consumed. But a municipality dealing with this matter would provide, at all events, a pure and, so to speak, wholesome beverage. In the great city of Hamburg, having many of the characteristics of our large towns, with a population of more than 250,000 and a large working-class element, drunkenness, which had been very prevalent, was greatly diminished by the adoption of a light German lager beer for the coarse spirits of the country and the Hamburg port and sherry, which they prudently reserved for their foreign

  1869
  customers. English municipalities would have a great chance of securing gradually and by experience the substitution of some light beer similar to that consumed in Germany, instead of the noxious stuff which now maddened and destroyed a large part of our population. The managers of the Corporations would be required, as a condition of their appointment, to revert to the old system and become bonâ fide victuallers, supplying food to the people as well as intoxicating drinks; and their houses would become more and more respectable working-men's clubs where there would be no temptation to drink for the benefit of the house or to indulge in excessive consumption. But it was said this system, whatever its merits as it stood, would inevitably lead to something else which would be inexpedient and undesirable; for instance, to corporate interference with other strictly commercial undertakings. But other trades were free in every sense, and were therefore properly left to individual enterprise; while the trade in drink, rightly or wrongly, had been created by the Legislature a practical monopoly; and it was not only right, but expedient, that the benefit of that monopoly should be secured without its evils by transferring the trade to the representatives of the community. In that case it would become not a monopoly, but co-operation for the benefit of all. In his opinion the monopoly should be handed over to the community, who should eliminate those personal interests which now stood in the way of the efficient control of the trade. It was then said that the cost of the scheme would be so excessive that no municipality would be justified in availing themselves of it. At all events, that objection was premature in the present preliminary stage—everything depended on the value to be put on the property; and until the House settled the principle on which transfers should be made, it would be impossible to form any calculation as to whether it would be safe to indulge in the scheme. He should hope that the principle accepted by the House would be that compensation should be based upon the fair market value, not upon any excessive value of the property. They might fairly proceed on the precedent of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, and in that case the Corporations might be expected to
  1870
  take advantage of the facilities afforded. Under that Act the Corporation of Birmingham was now engaged in acquiring no less than 120 public-houses, and what was wanted was that facilities should be extended to that and other towns to take over all the houses engaged in the same traffic. Considering that for one case of crime or pauperism and even of disease distinctly traceable to unhealthy dwellings, there were many such cases duo to the way in which the drink traffic was now carried on, there would be no lack of motive for such an extension of powers as was suggested. If these facilities were afforded, he felt confident not only that the Corporations would undertake this duty and responsibility without serious less, but also with the hope that respectable ratepayers would be relieved of a great part of the burden which the dissolute and drunken portion of the community had thrown upon them. But he now came to an argument which he was more inclined to deplore and even to resent, because it had been accepted by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. It was an argument which struck at the very root of Liberalism and of all local self-government. It was said that the patronage which such a scheme would involve could not be safely entrusted to the representatives of the people in our Municipal Corporations, and would lead to a tremendous amount of jobbery and corruption. This argument was unsupported by theory and condemned by facts. If true, it amounted to this—that the people were not to be trusted to manage their own affairs, and that confidence could not safely be placed in the people themselves. The Municipal Corporations already took charge of gas and water works, markets, roads, and sewage for the benefit of the public. The income from all sources of the Birmingham Corporation was £1,000,000, and its contracts for coal alone amounted to £250,000 a-year. It was continually in the market for buildings, machinery, clothing, and stores of all kinds; and the same might be said of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, and other large towns. Yet, since the passing of the Municipal Act in 1836 there was not a single case in which a Corporation had been false to the trust reposed in them; there had not been a single case of corporate jobbery, as distinct from some petty individual cases of malversation,

  1871
  which could be charged against these municipal authorities. Of what other national institution was it possible to say as much? Could more be said of the administration of the Departments of the State—the Telegraphs, the Post Office, the Army, and the Navy? Could as much be said of the administration of the joint-stock enterprises which sometimes excited the admiration of hon. Members? Were not the records of our Law Courts filled with scandalous reports of mismanagement, jobbery, and corruption on the part of limited liability companies? Yet during the same period there was not a single instance of similar malpractice proved against the unselfish, unpaid, if humble workers for the public good in the neighbourhoods in which they lived who now found themselves subject to so much unmerited suspicion and unfounded mistrust. He invited the House to place confidence in municipal authorities, and to believe that they would rise to the magnitude of the functions with which they might be entrusted. He was convinced that whatever were their defects they would be removed by increasing their responsibilities and by cumulating their duties, and making it the ambition of every good and earnest man to do some good in the world by taking his share in the management of these institutions. He had always regarded as one of the worst features of the legislation of 1870, that the education of the people was entrusted not to Town Councils, but to another co-ordinate local authority, and he was convinced that the result would be the deterioration of both. In the meantime, municipal work lost what it might have gained in breadth of character and elevation of aim by the co-operation of men of culture and ability, who would have been attracted by educational responsibility. He ventured to hope that no such mistake would be made in any future regulation of the liquor traffic, for he was certain that the more important were the issues that were submitted to local Parliaments, the more effective would be their administration, and the greater would be the ability and the higher the character of the men who would take part in it. If his proposal should at any future time find favour with the House and be embodied in a Bill, he did not suppose many boroughs would at first take advantage of the
  1872
  Facilities it would afford them, and he lid not suggest that this new experiment should be forced on the English people. He would except the Metropolis, which had not the municipal organization necessary for dealing with a subject of this magnitude. He would leave Scotland to those temperance reformers who were willing to secure sobriety only on the exact lines they themselves laid down; and he would at first legislate only in England and Wales, and then only for those municipalities which chose to take advantage of the scheme. There would remain one or two boroughs which would attempt this great experiment, and the very sense of the responsibility which led them to undertake such a duty would be the best guarantee that they would carry out the experiment in a spirit worthy of its object. He appealed to the Home Secretary to show in this, as in other cases, his appreciation of enabling and permissive legislation. In Birmingham the Town Council, by a majority of 46 to 10, and the Board of Guardians unanimously, had passed resolutions in favour of this proposal. Do not let the House suppose, as had been suggested, that this was a Party question in Birmingham. In Birmingham, as in this House and throughout the country, the general well-being of the nation was altogether superior to Party considerations, and a meeting of the Birmingham clergy, who, unfortunately, were mostly members of the Conservative Party, carried, with one dissentient, a resolution approving the principle of this scheme. It was submitted to the Wesleyan ministers with a similar result, and he had to-day presented a Petition in its favour from the Birmingham branch of the United Kingdom Alliance—a fact which he commended to the notice of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). Of course, if an experiment was made and this scheme succeeded it would rapidly spread throughout the country, as it had spread throughout Sweden, and then we might hope we had taken a practical step towards solving this intricate and difficult problem, which, as Mr. Cobden said, lies at the bottom of all political and social reform. Success would at least exclude from our political life the baleful interest of a gigantic vested interest, whose tyranny and whose insolence must be as repugnant to those who

  1873
  could profit by it as it was to those who were suffering from its opposition. An hon. Member suggested that the success of this proposal would also get rid of the United Kingdom Alliance, and he confessed he should not be sorry to set free the good, earnest, and able men who comprised that organization for other philanthropic work. At any rate, success would do much for the welfare of the country and for the happiness of its teeming population, and the result which was staked upon the issue was important enough, he hoped, to justify his intrusion upon the attention of the House, and to excuse the demand he had made upon its indulgence. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY, in seconding the Resolution, said, he had been compelled to come forward on this occasion by a strong desire to lift this question out of the arena of Party politics, and he rejoiced in this matter to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman opposite, whose political principles on most points were as far from his own as the poles asunder. He came forward in the interest of the public and of morality. The question was one which must be dealt with, and it could not long remain where it was. It was necessary in the interests of public health, public morals, and public order that it should soon be dealt with. The supporters of the Permissive Bill would do well to accept the verdict that was so often expressed by the House, and, withdrawing their own measure, support this proposal. Legislation on the subject of the liquor traffic had not hitherto met with success, and the best thing the House could do would be to consider how the evil could be remedied. The Permissive Bill had been rejected again and again by large and increasing majorities, because it would suppress the traffic altogether, and also because it did not recognize the principle of compensation; but those who voted against it were not justified in concluding that that was all they could do. The introduction of beer-house and of light wines and grocers' licences had not diminished intemperance. The Licensing Bill of the late Government was not a success, and he did not think the present Home Secretary would in the future view his amendment of the Act as among the first achievements of his political career. To provide facilities for the legitimate traffic, and at
  1874
  the same time to recognize the vested interests, would enable them to minimise the temptation which had ruined so many. The hon. Gentleman had successfully shown that his system diminished drunkenness, and its extensive adoption in Sweden ought to impress them in its favour. He expressed an opinion that corporations might very well be entrusted to carry out the system. The Legislature had recently shown a disposition to throw responsibilities of equal weight upon local authorities. Corporations were entrusted with the management of water and gasworks, and the Imperial Government itself had gone in the same direction in acquiring the management of the telegraphs. The powers recently conferred on local authorities had been well exercised. As to the cry that they would have bodies elected for the purpose of giving cheap beer, he thought they had evidence enough of the growing feeling of the people upon the subject of the regulation of the liquor traffic to trust them to refuse to sanction any such proposition. A tender view was also likely to be taken of the proposal by the trade, who had proved themselves no mean opponents to other measures. The trade deserved every consideration, and he thought it would be well if they noticed that by this proposal compensation was for the first time offered to them. They had joined in deploring the evils of the present system, and had always expressed themselves ready and willing to co-operate in any way with any reasonable scheme by which their interests were duly regarded. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would give this measure its calm consideration, and not dismiss it at once as impracticable. The proposal was not one of visionary philanthropy, and it emanated from a town which had already distinguished itself in carrying out measures of public utility. The proposal was, no doubt, a startling one, but it came well from the town of Birmingham, which had carried out the Artizans Dwellings Act with so much spirit, and whose authorities now professed themselves willing to grapple with the great evil of drunkenness.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is desirable to empower the Town Councils of Boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Acts to acquire compulsorily, on payment of fair compensation, the existing interests

  1875
  in the Retail Sale of Intoxicating Drinks within their respective districts; and thereafter, if they see fit, to carry on the trade for the convenience of the inhabitants, but so that no individual shall have any interest in nor derive any profit from the sale."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, in rising to say a few words upon this question, if the House would allow him, he must, before addressing himself to the question, say how much the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) for the able way in which he had introduced the question, and the array of facts he had brought forward in its support—a speech not only able but temperate in the manner in which it had been argued. He would venture to say that he rejoiced to think that this subject was one clearly outside the history of Party feeling. None would believe, he hoped, from the interest that he had taken on the subject that ho was influenced by any such feeling, and he was convinced that every one of them in that House had but one earnest idea before him constantly, and that was to meet what was undoubtedly one of the great evils of our time, and by any reasonable means to reduce the drunkenness, which was to a large extent the cause of crime. The question really before the House was whether such a reduction of crime and drunkenness was likely to follow as the result of the scheme submitted to it. That scheme took its origin, as the hon. Member had told them, from a system which had for some time prevailed in the town of Gothenburg, in Sweden. They had known in that House for some time the alleged working of the system, and the hon. Member had told them that if the system were applied to England, or to part of it, he believed that a similar advantage would result in this country. Now, he ventured to think that although the hon. Member had quoted figures to show them the reduction in the number of cases of drunkenness in Gothenburg, he hardly thought they justified the unqualified praise that had been given to the system. The system had, he believed, been at work for 12 years in Gothenburg; and he was aware that during the first few years, from its introduction in 1865, it had really produced a great reduction in the number of convictions for drunkenness. The number of convictions that
  1876
  had taken place in Gothenburg in 1865 was 2,161, and that number was reduced in the year 1868 to 1,320. What had happened since? Had that first reduction been maintained, and had the same result continued? Nothing of the sort. In the years between 1869 and 1872 these convictions for drunkenness had increased by 881, and in the year 1874—the last year to which they had any statistics—the convictions had risen to 2,234, a number actually larger than existed before the system was introduced. The convictions, as the hon. Member had shown, were, according to the number of population, as I in 25, notwithstanding which he sought to introduce the system into England, although in this country the number of convictions was relatively smaller in the great majority of the large towns. He had in his hand a number of statistics which had been submitted by the hon. Member himself to the country, which showed that in 71 towns in England, each of which had a larger population than Gothenburg, the convictions for drunkenness were, in almost all cases, fewer. Out of these 71 towns there were only three which were remarkable for being below the figures put before the House as the proportion in Gothenburg. These three were Tynemouth, South Shields, and Liverpool, where the average number was as 1 in 20 to the inhabitants. In seven other towns it was 1 in 30, and in the remaining 61 others there was a considerably better condition of things than in Gothenburg. However, he might say that he did not wish to rely upon these statistics as being infallible, for he believed it possible by figures to prove that drunkenness had really no relation to the number of beer-houses in a district; and that, in his opinion, was another argument which went to show that they could hardly rest their case upon any statistics. Instead of having endeavoured to prove that, he should have liked him to show that drunkenness was not caused by the large number of public-houses to which reference had been made. He ventured to think that the increase in drunkenness might be attributed very fairly to two other causes. Within a few years they had had in England a very large increase of the wages of the population, and alongside of that a diminution in

  1877
  the hours of labour and a consequent increase in the hours of leisure. He thought that some, if not much, of the increased drunkenness was caused rather by the increasing hours of leisure accompanying the larger means suddenly acquired than to the fact of the numerous public - houses in any locality. But when it came to a question of adopting the system which had been adopted—whether with success or not he would not say — at Gothenburg, there were practical difficulties of a very serious kind which suggested themselves. In Gothenburg the inhabitants had not proceeded in the way which the hon. Member proposed with regard to this country. The system was not introduced by the Town Council, as was wished here, but by the action of a private Company, which had bought up the public-houses as a private commercial transaction and speculation, at first in a very small way — not a wholesale, but partial purchase. The Company had given £10,000 for the purchase of 40 public-houses, subsequently purchasing the other 21. The price paid for these houses, too, was very small in comparison with what would have to be paid in this country, or even in such a town as Birmingham. They would find it a very difficult thing to purchase all the public-houses in Birmingham, where they stood in the proportion of 1 to 40 of the total number of houses. Did the hon. Member suppose for a moment that it would be an easy matter to purchase the whole of these? At first, perhaps, the enthusiasm of the people might enable the Corporation to do something; but when they came to pay the compensation which the hon. Member had acknowledged must be given, the burdens that would be thrown upon the rates was almost certain to prove a drawback to the scheme, which would soon be realized by the people themselves. If, in order not to place the whole of the amount that would be entailed by such a scheme as this, it was proposed that only a certain portion of the houses were to be taken by the Corporation, that did not do away with the difficulty. Suppose the town not to be prepared for the purchase of the whole of the houses, which would entail a rate of at least 4s. in the £1 for a period of 20 years, and they took part of the number, he doubted whether
  1878
  there was any likelihood of the attempt becoming palatable to the people of this country. For if the system were so introduced, they would have the corporations competing with the private purchasers of public-houses, and considering that they had the power of making such regulations as they saw fit regarding them, besides that of granting or refusing the licences at will, he thought, notwithstanding the way in which the hon. Member had stated his feelings of indignation with regard to such an assertion, that such a proceeding would give rise to the imputation that corrupt means might be used. With regard to the patronage which would be thrown into the hands of the local authorities, it might be shown, no doubt, that in the matter of gas, water, and sewage works, they had acted properly and well; but he ventured to think this question of public-houses stood upon a very different footing. The public-houses were the resort of, at all events, the lower part of the population. And not only so. The publicans themselves were not the only persons to be considered. They were dealing with the influence which licensed victuallers exercised in times of election over the masses, and they had to consider whether there was not considerable danger in that influence being placed in the hands of the servants of the Corporation. Were they willing to place that gigantic political weapon in the hands of their Town Councils? The Town Council of Birmingham were persons who were perhaps above the suspicion of corruption; but were all municipal authorities, or even Watch Committees, people whom they could as readily trust in a matter of this kind? Beyond that, did the House imagine that the question of compensation was simply a question of the number of men holding licences in any particular town? There was, he might remind them, another element which entered into this question, and which affected it largely. That was the element of the brewers, who were in many cases owners of these houses. Their interests would have to be considered as well as those of the retailers who occupied the premises. There might be another danger if this matter were placed in the hands of Town Councils, which they had often heard argued in connection with the Permissive

  1879
  Bill. At first, perhaps, when municipalities stirred in the direction proposed by this system the public feeling might support them, and all might go well; but did anyone mean to say that those whose vested interests would be endangered, and who were said to possess considerable political influence, would not wish to see the old system restored, and would not do all in their power to bring about such a restoration? However, these were not his only grounds of opposition to the scheme. He certainly, from a letter which he had that morning received from Mr. Duff, the British Consul in Gothenburg, was inclined to believe that these objections were strengthened by the actual working of the system in Gothenburg itself. In the letter which he had received from the Consul he spoke of the evils attending it, and said that—
  "The Gothenburg Licensing Company had a good object in view when established, but the system, it appears, has proved a failure, owing to the way in which it has been carried out, and is at present only a money-making concern, realising a large amount annually, which forms a considerable income to the town. Drunkenness in Gothenburg is great, even among the upper classes, and the lower orders consider the company's retail shops as their privileged resort. These shops are situate in the most frequented situations, right in the face of the labourers and seamen, and I consider this is a great encouragement and temptation to drinking."
  That, combined with some figures with regard to the amount of the profits and the amount of liquor consumed, strengthened his objections to this scheme. Accompanying the letter to which he had just referred were a number of statistics which showed that in 1865 the number of gallons drunk was 66,169, which in 1875 had risen to 329,982 gallons, whilst the money profits were £7,205 in 1865, and in 1875 £45,374. These figures encouraged him in believing that the introduction of this system to our country would not tend to the diminution of drunkenness or lessening the consumption of liquor, and he ventured to think the letter referred to showed that drunkenness was a part of the system existing in this town of Sweden. The hon. Member for Birmingham had well said that everyone who was in earnest was anxious to do his best to contribute something for the removal of this great evil; but although, perhaps, it might not appear so favourably to the hon. Member as to
  1880
  himself, he ventured to think that if the existing laws had been properly carried out a very large amount of the difficulties they were now enduring would not have existed. The licensing laws, combined with the Habitual Criminals Act, were admirably fitted to bring about the results aimed at if properly enforced, and if that were so they would see such results as had taken place at Luton, where from 257 convictions which had been recorded for drunkenness in 1869, they had been reduced in 1874 to 66. If properly administered, the licensing system might be made efficacious. The authorities had practically power over the criminal and drunken population, and in the counties, where they were duly administered, one-half of the criminals had gone to work, many were striving hard to retrieve themselves, and numbers had disappeared altogether. He believed that if the magistrates really would carry out these Acts, with the police to back them, they would be able in a short time to produce good results. Administration of these Acts in this way would, in his opinion, be more consonant with the feelings of the people of England than the attempt to introduce a system from which numerous evils must follow. He ventured to think that whilst they were all anxious, and no one more than himself, to see the causes of these crimes reduced, that reduction might be attained by the proper administration of existing laws, or at least with small amendments to them.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) concluded his admirable speech with a pious aspiration that the proceedings to-night might tend to the extinction of the United Kingdom Alliance. I am sure that aspiration will find an echo in the breasts of a great many hon. Members of this House, but in no one's breast did it find a more cordial echo than in my own; for it will be the happiest hour in my life when the United Kingdom Alliance is dissolved; but I assure you, Sir, it will not be dissolved until its work is done. And I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham for having forwarded that work very much by the eloquent speech he has made to-night. There was very little in that speech with which I could not very cordially agree, and I am sure the House will forgive me for saying

  1881
  what pleasure it gives me to see what an advance this question has made in public opinion. I do rejoice to see this House beginning now to take up this matter in earnest. We have heard a great deal of late about the horrible atrocities in the East; the country has been aroused on that question. I am very glad that we can find some little time to turn our attention to the daily atrocities which we hear of in this country, and that under the guidance of the hon. Member for Birmingham we may soon make some efficient attack upon the cause of all those evils. This question certainly is advancing. It is only about three years since there were two men, who had not then seats in this House, but whom the public pointed out as being in every way qualified and fitted to adorn this Assembly—I mean my two hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Birmingham, who has addressed us to-night, and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen);—but there can be no doubt that in the view of many people they were both of them looked upon as rather dangerous and revolutionary characters. Well, Sir, it gives me the greatest satisfaction to find that no sooner do they get into this House than, instead of advancing any attacks upon the great institutions of Church and State, they set themselves to revolutionize and overthrow that most monstrous of all institutions, the drink traffic, which is degrading and demoralizing this country. I rejoice to see two such valiant champions ready to do battle with what the hon. Member for Birmingham has called this "swollen tyranny." Sir, although I do not agree with everything in this Resolution, there can be no question that it would, if passed, be the most deadly blow which this generation has seen struck at the liquor traffic as it at present exists; it would be a declaration by this House that it considers the present licensing system an evil, and an irremediable evil. Now, what is that licensing system? Why, we have been told on good authority that the licensing system was intended for financial and for police purposes. Sir, for one of these purposes it has been the greatest and most triumphant success; we raise an enormous revenue by its means. But for the other purpose I maintain that it is a deplorable failure. It has failed utterly; and
  1882
  why? Because every individual trader in this business is paid by results. He is paid exactly in proportion to the amount of drink which he can get his fellow-creatures to consume. The object of the licensing system was to establish throughout the country a number of men who should give to their neighbours just enough to drink, and not a drop too much. There can be no other justification for limiting the trade. But that object has not been attained, and the temptation to give the consumer too much, and at the same time to make money by the extra sale, has overcome the resolution of those who deal in intoxicating liquors to preserve the public order; and the consequence is that we see from the Returns which have been quoted tonight how the country has been flooded with drunkenness and demoralization. Why these traders, who get their licences on condition of only supplying exactly enough to their customers, during the last year for which we have Returns gave an overdose to no less than 200,000 of their customers, and there were double the number of arrests that were made 10 years ago, and I think to-night we have had the argument about police vigilance exploded. Somebody generally gets up with a lot of statistics to prove that a couple of old women less have been taken up, and therefore we are on the high road to perfection; but to-night we see that all that firm reliance on statistics has been cast over. I do not know about these police being so vigilant. The hon. Member for Birmingham, in one of his pamphlets, states that at Birmingham one-fourth of the police force of that town had been themselves reported for drunkenness, so that if there has been increased activity in the police force, it seems that it has been increased activity in getting drunk; and I saw the other day that at a meeting of the Town Council of Salford a question was put to the Mayor, whether it was not true that 60 per cent of the police of that town had been reported for drunkenness, and the Mayor, like a good and prudent Mayor, declined to give any answer; and I draw my own conclusion from the reticence of the worshipful gentleman. Will anybody, after that, believe that it is the vigilance of the police that has increased the arrests for drunkenness by 100 per cent within the last 10 years? If they do, I think they

  1883
  must believe that in a few years more we shall all be taken up together. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) exploded the theory of police vigilance, for he elaborately proved that the laws were not carried out as they ought to be, and as he wishes them to be carried out in future. If they are, then we shall have a vast deal more people taken up than we have now. Of course, the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham is to provide that this selling of intoxicating drink shall be carried on without producing those evils which all right-thinking persons so much deplore; and here is his object, stated in a report of a committee of the muncipality of Stockholm on the desirability of adopting the Gothenburg system in their town. Here is the description they gave of managers of public-houses—
  "The manager of a public-house must possess that firmness, zeal, and discretion which are required in his difficult position, between the demands of the consumer on the one hand, and his duty to the community on the other."
  That is very well put—almost as well as my hon. Friend could put it himself—and that is just the object which we have had in view in the licensing system, only it so happens that the zeal of those we have licensed has outrun their discretion. In future, according to my hon. Friend, the publicans are to be so discreet that they will not allow their zeal to go so far as to supply an "extra glass." In short, he proposes that we should have at last a patriotic publican and a philanthropic potboy. He has put it very well. People are in future not to drink for the good of the house, but for the good of themselves—not for the benefit of the publicans, but for the benefit of the public; and I freely admit that is a very good object if it can be accomplished. My hon. Friend proposes to empower corporations to carry on this business. He is retaining the principle which is now so popular. He is copying the Government in their wise course, for the Government never brings in anything except Permissive Bills. The Government brings in Permissive Bills on all subjects except the drink traffic; but my hon. Friend is bolder, for he, to-night, has brought in a Permissive Bill on the drink traffic. But I must explain to the House what I think he did not dwell on so much as I think
  1884
  he might have done, in order to make it clear that what he suggests in the Resolution is a little different from what is now being carried on in Gothenburg. In Sweden this trade is carried on by a company, who are allowed to buy up all the licences; but my hon. Friend proposes that they should be transferred to the corporation, which makes a considerable difference, and one which ought to be considered by hon. Gentlemen in a full discussion of this subject. But before we go further and decide whether it is desirable to empower corporations to undertake this business, we ought to see whether it really has been the great success which it sometimes is said to have been in Gothenburg. Now, I take the year 1872. In that year three gallons per head of spirit were disposed of by the Gothenburg Company for every man, woman, and child in Gothenburg, being one gallon more than is consumed on an average by the entire population of Scotland. Mr. Carnegie, who is a very able, earnest, and excellent advocate of the Gothenburg system, made a speech at Edinburgh in July, 1873, in which he said that Gothenburg was making rapid strides towards becoming a model of temperance; but he published a pamphlet a little while afterwards, in 1874, I think, in which he said that he saw in 1874—or, at any rate, after his Edinburgh speech—407 more persons were taken up in Gothenburg for drunkenness than in 1873, and in fact, that in one of those years there were about three times the number of drunkards in Gothenburg that there were in Edinburgh, in proportion to the population. And I believe that at the present time the arrests for drunkenness in Gothenburg are very nearly equal in proportion to those in Liverpool, which we know is not a model of sobriety, but is as near a perfect model of drunkenness as the civilization of this age, which consists very much in promoting the sale of drink, can produce. Mr. Carnegie tried to explain it away by saying that he found those people who were arrested in Gothenburg were, a great many of them, not inhabitants of the town, but had come in from the country districts to attend the market. What an extraordinary defence! Why were those people to be made drunk any more than those who lived in the town? I thought those patriotic publicans were to know exactly how much everybody

  1885
  was to have. Cannot they tell how much a countryman can stand as well as a townsman? Well, you know the English custom—it is familiar to the House—the old Staffordshire saying—"Who's that?" "A stranger." "Let's throw half a brick at him!" It seems that the Gothenburg custom is this—"Who's that?" "A stranger?" "Let's make him drunk!" But, Sir, let me go into this question, and let us see what are the real facts. We have heard of Stockholm; in 1874 the proportion of arrests for drunkenness was 1 in 46. In Gothenburg it was 1 in 26. That shows—I do not wish to put the case too strongly, but it does show that Gothenburg is as yet a long way from being Paradise regained. If the House will look into the facts they will see that the real good which has been done by any of this Swedish legislation has been done when the law provided for restriction, and even prohibition of the liquor traffic altogether. We have heard to-night—and I commend it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe)—that not a generation ago Sweden, which was the best educated country we could find, and which abounded with religious facilities also—Sweden had that free trade in drink which is advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, and the consequence was that, notwithstanding all its advantages, it was the drunkenest country in Europe. But that has been changed, not by putting the traffic into the hands of a company, but by removing the public-houses altogether. Why, when the law first came into force in Sweden, the public-houses were reduced by 40 per cent, and that made a wonderful change at once. But I must quote at full length from a pamphlet written by Mr. Balfour, an ardent advocate of this scheme. Mr. Balfour says—
  "In estimating the practical value of the Swedish Licence Reform Act of 1855 allow me to refer to the fact that no minimum number was fixed for licence, and thus what is essentially a Permissive Prohibitory Act has existed is Sweden for the last 20 years. So vigorously have the people outside the towns used their permission to limit and prohibit, that among 3,500,000 people there were only 450 places for the sale of spirits. That is, for a population such as we have in the county of Lancaster, instead of having 7,000 spirit licences and 8,000 beer and wine licences, they have only 450, besides a certain number of houses for the sale
  1886
  of weak beer. This it is which has so helped Sweden to emerge from moral and material prostration, and which explains the existence of such general indications in that country of comfort and independence among all classes."
  This power of prohibition is exactly what I have asked that my fellow-countrymen may be allowed to exercise, and which this House says they are not fitted to exercise. When my hon. Friend says—"Let the corporations, if they see fit, take this matter into their own hands," I have an equal right to say—"Let the country parishes, if they see fit, remove this great source of crime altogether." I want the House to understand that it is the principle of the Permissive Bill that my hon. Friend has been advocating to-night, and, whatever you say about the Resolution, that is the real good in it. I was at one time deemed a fanatic for saying that licences to sell drink ought to be granted for the benefit of the public and not of the publicans; but times are changing. See what the leading journal says in one sentence, talking about the Irish Closing Bill the other day—
  "It has come to be confessed by English politicians that, on a matter of local importance, deference should be paid to local wishes."
  Exactly; and that is why the Government consented to pass the second reading of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill the other day. Why should not other places have the same right as Ireland? Why should not the parishes of England enjoy it? Are the circumstances of Ireland so peculiar? I remember the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Delahunty) made a speech in the last Parliament, and he began his speech by saying—"Mr. Speaker, Ireland is an island entirely surrounded by water." Well, what difference does that make? Surely a parish surrounded by a ring fence has as much right to have the minds and wishes of its inhabitants consulted as the people of Ireland have, because they happen to live in an island surrounded by water. Surely all the localities have a right to say whether they will have this trade amongst them or not. Is it possible now for anybody to bring in a Bill in this House without giving it a tinge of the Permissive Bill? Why, even during the late Government—Mr. Bruce had a touch of it in his Bill; and my hon. Friend sitting below me (Sir Robert Anstruther) who is always bringing in drink Bills which are fearfully

  1887
  and wonderfully made, cannot get on unless he takes a little bit of the Permissive Bill. Sometimes he measures his restriction by hundreds of inhabitants and sometimes by hundreds of yards; he runs backwards and forwards, and we never know how many yards off he is—but all his Bills have a touch of the Permissive Bill. And then there is that admirable Bill which I had the pleasure of supporting last year, and which I hope I shall have the pleasure of supporting this year—the Bill of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen)—that is also a Permissive Bill. It would give the people the power of getting rid of these places if they choose, only by a different and more elaborate machinery than that which is suggested in my Bill. And, indeed, my hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) does support the second reading of the Permissive Bill. I have heard him make one of the best speeches on that measure which I ever heard delivered, which, if it were not too long, I would read to the House. But this principle that he has embodied in his Resolution frightens some people. Now, I see a very excellent good Friend of mine sitting on the front Opposition bench, who looks as if he were going to speak, and I hope he is—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff). He has been advocating the Gothenburg scheme, and I am delighted to see him taking up the question. But in describing the scheme of the hon. Member for Birmingham, which he did in a very clever speech, when he came to this part of it, "if they saw fit," he did not like it at all. And when he got to that part, he said—
  "Of course the power of shutting up all the public-houses is one that would in practice never be exercised, and must have been, I should think, introduced into the plan of Mr. Chamberlain merely for the purpose of giving it logical completeness."
  Of course it was. My hon. Friend was not going to bring in an illogical Bill. He knew that if he gave the power to a company or a corporation, he must "go the whole hog;" he must trust them entirely, or not at all. And I think he is right; because, although it may be perfectly true, as was said by the present Prime Minister, that logic does not rule Parliament, yet I believe that logic in the end wins the day. But
  1888
  why should the hon. Member for Elgin say this scheme will never be carried out? Does he think that the Town Councils are so careless, stupid, degraded, and ignorant that they will like to have the liquor traffic everywhere, and all the pauperism which it brings? I hope there are Town Councils which would be wise enough, if they get the power, not only to take the trade out of the hands of the publicans, but to do away with it altogether. But I must allude to some of the objections which present themselves to this scheme. My hon. Friend talks about compensation. His Resolution is very well drawn, and he says he would give "fair compensation." So would I. I do not want to do anything unfair. Let anybody show that he is entitled to compensation, and there is no one in this House who would be more ready to vote for it than I am. But I tell you what I think — this is merely my opinion—I think that where a man has made a bargain with the public, and has paid money for the power of selling drink up to the 10th of October, on which day his licence ends, it is quite fair that if you want him to give up before that date you should pay him something. But after that I should not give him one penny of compensation. People talk about compensation; but I should like to see any first-class lawyer stand up in this House, and pledge his reputation to the statement that a publican has any right to compensation after his licence has run out. He would never be listened to afterwards, and his authority would be gone if he dared to say anything of the kind. Why, when the law has stepped in and interfered with other property, what has happened? The Factory Acts were passed; they said to certain manufacturers—"You have a big building, you shall not use this building except in a certain way, and except within certain hours children shall not be employed in them." One owner of a factory wrote to me the other day, and said the Factory Acts had lessened the value of his fixed capital by 20 per cent. But nobody has thought of giving him compensation for his loss; it was for the public good. I see the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). There was a time when he was an agitator, like me. Well he never agitated against the wicked land-

  1889
  lord who sells drink. He agitated against the wicked landlord who sold corn in the old days. He said—"Here is a law by which the price of your corn is artificially raised, and by which you make use of your land at present. We will alter that law." And the law was altered, and the value of corn, and consequently the value of land, fell; and we landlords never got a penny—we were not entitled to it. Well, but I will come to later proceedings. The House has passed the second reading of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. An hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) rose in his place on the second reading and said that if this Bill were passed it would ruin between 16,000 and 18,000 publicans in Ireland, in many parts of which country they drink only on Sunday, I suppose. No doubt they have been doing most of their business on that day; but is anyone prepared to give them a penny of compensation? And I defy even this Government, which is not averse to compensating various kinds of people—I defy this Government or any other to come down to this House and propose anything so monstrous, as that because the law alters the liquor traffic those who trade in liquor shall be compensated. But I may be wrong in all this; there may be a claim to compensation, and I am quite willing to hear the arguments on that side. Indeed, I would willingly give the traders all they ask, if by that means I could get rid of them and prevent them carrying on their desolating trade. But there is another argument — and this objection comes from a great many gentlemen who are earnestly friendly to temperance, and I regret that I cannot see eye to eye with them on this occasion. They say it is very wicked to allow a corporation to carry on this trade. Let me sum up that argument in one sentence. It is an extract from a circular issued by some of our friends in the North in which they describe the Resolution of the hon. Member for Birmingham as proposing a scheme—
  "Which seeks to give power to the corporations to impose taxes on the people for the purpose of compensating the publicans and thereafter to carry on the publicans' business in the name of the ratepayers, thus involving the whole community in the moral and social degradation that flows from the public-house."
  I have no objection to the last few words
  1890
  that I have read; but as far as I can see we are not more implicated in the moral and social degradation which flows from the public-house by adopting the plan of my hon. Friend than we are already implicated in it by our existing Legislation. Under the present system the Imperial Government sends out 150,000 tax-gatherers to collect an enormous revenue by demoralizing the people of England. The hon. Member for Birmingham has described the action of the magistrates in this matter. He said it used to be the practice to give licences as rewards for long and faithful domestic services. That is, they licensed their old butlers. At all events, they have licensed 150,000 of various kinds of drink sellers, and I think it is a very horrible thing to contemplate. A very able medical man described this system the other day as one which was raising a revenue from the graves of the people; and I do not think the language was much too strong. In a few weeks' time, when we assemble after Easter, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come down to this House with his Budget, and tell us how he has got upwards of £30,000,000 from the taxes raised from drink; and as every Chancellor of the Exchequer does he will, after parading his millions, then—to use Lord Beaconfield's expression—"with a face arranged for the occasion," express his regret at the immorality of the working classes. Then we shall all go home delighted at the arrangement of our financial measures, little thinking of all the wretchedness involved in raising that enormous revenue from the vices of a nation. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) will say as to the corporation of the town he represents engaging in a traffic which he once denounced as producing crime, disorder, and madness; but I do know that if this scheme of my Eon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) is passed, if it come into force, and if corporations be allowed this power, there are some resolute, earnest men in every constituency in the Kingdom who will fight to the death rather than allow their corporation to enter into a trade which they consider so immoral and so destructive. They will have more regard for the welfare and happiness of the poor in their neighbourhood, and I sincerely

  1891
  hope they will win a victory over those who wish to carry on this demoralizing trade. I thank the House for having so kindly heard my remarks. I have endeavoured to draw attention to the good and bad points as they appeared to me in the proposition before the House. These hon. Gentlemen who believe the Gothenburg plan to be a success will support the scheme, as will those also who think that it will add to the dignity and honour of the corporations to be turned into retail licensed victuallers. I am one of those who doubt very much the truth of those two propositions. But still I feel a responsibility when I speak upon this question; and I feel that although I have my doubts as to the wisdom of parts of the scheme, it would be a very serious step to obstruct any measure which has a good tendency in this matter. I think honestly that the scheme in many respects is a fantastic one—that sober and sensible men must feel the absurdity of establishing people in a trade and telling them to do as little business in it as possible. I recognize the temptation to corporations to carry on this trade with the object of relieving themselves from the rates. I know also perfectly well that to many hon. Gentlemen the city of Gothenburg is a city of refuge to which they can fly to get a little breathing time from the furious assaults of the United Kingdom Alliance. But I support this Resolution because, with all its drawbacks, it strikes a deadly blew at the present licensing system, and because, although that is not its direct object, it does place the power of prohibiting the liquor traffic in the hands of 200 municipal councils, representing 6,000,000 of inhabitants. And, therefore, although I know that many of my best friends and supporters will say I am wrong in taking the course I propose to do, yet I cannot resist on this occasion doing what little there is in my power to support an earnest, honest, and able attempt to deal with the greatest evil of our day and generation.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he should vote for the Resolution, because the great city of Birmingham was ready to try this experiment if it had permission to do so; and while he should be sorry to see very many Town Councils trying it at once he should be still more sorry to
  1892
  see none of them try it at all. All they knew at present was that a kindred experiment had succeeded extremely well in Sweden, which possessed many features in common with our own—had succeeded, indeed, so well, that it was just about to be put in operation in the capital city of that country. Such a fact might be very far from decisive, but it raised a presumption favourable to the trial of some such experiment here. Objections had, however, been urged, with a view of showing that, though successful in Sweden, it would not be so here. Those objections he would briefly consider. It had been said that the rights of property would be interfered with. No doubt, they would, to some extent; but as no change whatever in the licensing laws could be made without more or less interfering with rights of property, that argument went a great deal too far. The question was, whether the interference proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was an undue or excessive interference. Then they were told that the plan would cause a most injurious extension of the patronage and power of Town Councils. That statement had no terrors for him. He wished to increase the patronage and power of Town Councils throughout the country, so as to make those bodies more influential and to make a seat in them more coveted. Then they were told that property of this kind had never been made the subject of compulsory purchase in a free country. What was the difference between the property now proposed to be taken and the property which could be taken under the Artizans Dwellings Act? Why, the hon. Member for Birmingham had told the House that under that Act Birmingham was positively purchasing compulsorily something like 120 public-houses. Then they were told that it would create a whole brood of borough monopolies. It would, he thought, rather extinguish a vast number of monopolies in the true sense of the word—namely, privileges given to individuals to sell for the purpose of creating a number of rights of selling, which were not in any true sense of the term monopolies at all. Then it was said that the advocates of cheap drink would fill the Council Chamber with persons pledged to maintain their interests. That was not at all probable. The moderate drinkers were in a great

  1893
  majority in every community, and the excessive drinkers in a minority. No doubt, elections turning purely upon questions of drinking or no drinking, such as would be elections under the Permissive Bill, would be a great evil. But the question of the management of the municipal public-houses would be merely one among many, and would form a perfectly legitimate subject of local interest and discussion. Then it was said that it was most undesirable that the public-houses and the police should be managed by the same public authority. He, on the contrary, thought that it would be most desirable, for the public-house-keepers and the police would then be acting together in sustaining the law. Then it was said that the Gothenburg plan had not prevented people from getting drunk. Was any one ever silly enough to think that it would? It had diminished the number of drunken people, and that was all; but that, surely, was a great deal. Then, it was said that the compensation required and the difficulties of the scheme generally were so gigantic that no Town Council would enter upon it. If none did, then no harm would be done; but if Birmingham entered upon it he shrewdly suspected that Birmingham would make an uncommonly good thing by it. If the various trades connected with the public-houses in Birmingham were not a good deal afraid that the town was likely to get—in case a measure founded upon this Resolution passed—a good share of the profits which had hitherto found its way into their pockets, he did not think they would have plied hon. Members with lithographed Petitions and printed statements in the way they had done. Then, we were advised to try free trade in liquor. That was the phrase used for the proposals of the Committee of 1854. But against those proposals he had to object—first, that in order to carry them we should have to overcome the united opposition of all the special advocates of temperance, plus the opposition of all the special advocates of intemperance; secondly, that when we had done it, we should not have free trade in liquor at all, but, at best, a somewhat less shackled trade in liquor than we had at present. We should never have free trade in liquor, till we made the trade of the publican as free as the trade of the baker, and no one had, as far as he
  1894
  knew, proposed to do that. We must have exceptional regulations in an exceptional trade. Thirdly, we should find it almost impossible to exercise that close police supervision which was a sine quâ non of these plans. The proposal of the hon. Member seemed to him the only one at present before the country which was likely, if accepted, to effect sufficient good to make it worth taking much trouble for; and if it were clear that it was not going to be accepted, there was nothing to be done, he was afraid, by legislation. We must then fall back upon the numerous indirect agencies which were working in favour of temperance in the lower strata of society, which would probably in time produce the same effect among them which a hundred agencies had done in the upper strata of society. But that would be a slow process, and if we could quicken it by doing a thing which seemed to be reasonable in itself, by giving the municipalities the completest control possible over the public-houses, while we prevented any injustice being done to existing licence-holders, he thought we ought to try to quicken it. We might, perhaps, do considerable good by legislative action, and this was the only legislation which commended itself to his mind.
  MR. FERGUSON: If the scope of this Resolution had been strictly limited by the hard-and-fast lines of the terms in which it has been drawn up—if the question had only been one between public-houses and public-houses limited, I should have been much inclined to think that the advantages to be gained were more than counterbalanced by the dangers to be apprehended. It is, however, evident that the scope of the proposal is by no means so limited, and that the cardinal point is the transfer of the public-houses to a body duly impressed with a sense of the moral responsibility under which they have assumed the control of them. It will further be in their power to introduce not only the milder forms of intoxicating drinks, and the eatables which it was originally their province to sell, as suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, but also non-intoxicating drinks such as coffee, lemonade, and, especially, cocoa, for which is claimed the virtue, that it possesses more than anything else of a similar description the property of assuaging the craving

  1895
  for intoxicating drinks. Thus they might convert them into something of the nature of workmen's cafés, or as suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, workmen's clubs. Thus those who resorted to a public-house for the sake of comfort and social intercourse would not be obliged in doing so to partake of drinks of an intoxicating nature. There is also another advantage which is not so obvious on the face of it, and it is this—The persons employed by the municipal authorities to conduct the beer public-houses would, under the system of simple restriction be, as it seems to me, in rather a false position. The ordinary theory is, that he who manages a business for others, should so conduct it as if he was managing it for himself. Now the whole scope of this measure is, that he should not conduct it as if he were managing it for himself. It would be rather difficult for him, as it seems to me, to disabuse his mind of the idea that his duty was not to do the best he could for his employer by making as large a return as he could. The injunction "Surtout point de zèle," not always understood by the more highly-educated classes, would be to him a mystery. But under the conditions to which I have referred all this would be changed. The employé would be simply in the position of a man placed to conduct a business according to the instructions given him. "There are two different sorts of goods. We wish you to push the sale of this sort, and to let the other take care of itself." These are instructions of every-day occurrence, which he could readily understand, and to which he would have no difficulty in conforming. Another advantage would be, that by these means, the municipality might be enabled to recoup itself for its restricted sale of intoxicating drinks, and thus make the scheme pay. There is another advantage which, though it is rather of a prospective character, might, I think, turn out to be of much value. Under the system proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham there would be no difficulty in closing the public-houses during the time of a contested election. This is carried out in many large towns of the United States, and there is nothing which would more contribute to order and quiet, and even the purity of an election. This, under the ordinary system, it would be difficult to do, because in the excited
  1896
  state of feeling then prevailing there would be a constant suspicion of political partizanship; whereas, if all the public houses were under the care of the municipality nothing of this sort could happen. I am further induced to support the Resolution by the fact that a municipality so important as that of Birmingham has approved of it, and might probably have the courage of their opinions, and carry it out. Should, then, that municipality carry it out successfully, others, no doubt, would be encouraged to follow its example. At all events, it would be tested under the most favourable circumstances. Should the corporation of Birmingham shrink from the enterprize, all I can say is that where Birmingham feared to tread no other corporation would be likely to rush in. Thus, at any rate, there would be no harm done. On the whole, then, not underrating any of the objections which may be urged against it, I think it my duty to vote in favour of the Resolution.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, believing there was much in what had been said with regard to local option, would give his support to the proposal of the hon. Member. The scheme had this especial merit—that private interest was dissociated from the desire to make people drunkards. He admitted that this was a great experiment; but, at the same time, he thought that not merely the great towns, but that rural parishes should be allowed to try it. Some hon. Members of that House endeavoured to carry out the principle put forward in the Resolution by encouraging the establishment of coffee houses where the working classes could refresh themselves without any danger of getting intoxicated. For his own part, he believed that if the corporations in cities and boroughs could get rid of the system of keeping drinking bars without food bars in public-houses, and afford sufficient accommodation of a different character, the plan would be entirely successful. He regretted to see by the statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department that the system now proposed had failed in Gothenburg. But that was entirely to be attributed to an increase of wages to the working classes, which amounted, in the timber trade especially, to nearly £1 a-day. That he had on the authority of a gentleman, a

  1897
  friend of his, who went over to buy timber, who informed him that wages had greatly increased, and so had intemperance in the same proportion.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, he could not pretend to any great experience on this subject; but he wished to say that what experience he had had led him to join those who had been called by licensed victuallers "unpractical, but well-meaning individuals and would-be reformers." His opinion, was that under the present licensing system, the evils that arose from drink would never be lessened, but would probably be increased. The number of liquor Bills that had been produced was sufficient to show that the existing arrangement was not so satisfactory as some people contended it was. Last year a memorial was signed by 13,000 clergymen of the Church of England setting forth their conviction, derived from long and intimate acquaintance with the people, that their condition would never be improved so long as intemperance prevailed amongst them, and that intemperance would continue to prevail among them so long as the temptations to drink surrounded them on every side. This was strong evidence of the failure of the licensing system, and was evidence not to be disregarded, especially on the Ministerial side of the House. It was sometimes said that we ought to be satisfied "if we see causes at work which tend to the ultimate eradication of intemperance." But if a man were suffering from a painful disease, would he like to be told to wait in this way, and would he not wish to adopt every means for putting a stop to the disease and preventing its aggravation? He should support the Motion, because he thought it would deal a vital blow at the present licensing system, and would enable those communities who wished to do so to apply their own remedy to the evil. He was not himself prepared to vote in favour of the Permissive Bill, as he considered that that would introduce a system that might interfere with the moderate and legitimate desires of respectable people, but ho did not consider that the Gothenburg system would have this effect. He had no doubt that the agitation against the existing system would go on as long as it was considered proper and right that a great proportion of the national Revenue should depend upon, and a great portion
  1898
  of the national capital should be embarked in a trade which was in reality a great national curse; and, this being so he thought it desirable that something in the shape of the principle before the House should be adopted with a view to counteract so great an evil.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 103: Majority 52.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Anderson, G.

  Leith, J. F.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Lush, Dr.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  M'Laren, D.

  Bell, I. L.

  Middleton, Sir A. E.

  Benett-Stanford, V. F.

  Morley, S.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Mure, Colonel

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  O'Byrne, W. R.

  Brogden, A.

  O'Clery, K.

  Burt, T.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Chadwick, D.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Richard, H.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Cowen, J.

  Sullivan, A. M.

  Crawford, J. S.

  Temple, rt. hon. W. Cowper-

  Cross, J. K.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Ward, M. F.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Whitworth, B.

  Ferguson, R.

  Whitworth, W.

  Havelock, Sir H.

  Howard, E. S.

  TELLERS.

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Chamberlain, J.

  Kenealy, Dr.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  NOES.

  Ashbury, J. L.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Assheton, R.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Fawcett, H.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Bass, A.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  Bates, E.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

  Gallwcy, Sir W. P.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Gardner, R. Richardson

  Blake, T.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Bruen, H.

  Goldney, G.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Gordon, W.

  Campbell, C.

  Goulding, W.

  Cobbold, T. C.

  Greene, E.

  Collins, E.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Corry, J. P.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Hall, A. W.

  Cross, rt. hon. R. A.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Denison, W. B.

  Hamilton, hon. R. B.

  Denison, W. E.

  Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Dunbar, J.

  Hill, T. R.

  Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

  Holker, Sir J.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.

  1899

  Isaac, S.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Scott, M. D.

  Jervis, Colonel

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Johnston, W.

  Kennard, Colonel

  Severne, J. E.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E.

  Shaw, W.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Knowles, T.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Smith, F. C.

  Lloyd, S.

  Smith, W. H.

  Lloyd, T. E.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Steere, L.

  Macdonald, A.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Maitland, J.

  Swanston, A.

  Manners,rt. hn.Lord J.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Marten, A. G.

  Thwaites, D.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Torr, J.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Walker, T. E.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Onslow, D.

  Watney, J.

  Phipps, P.

  Wells, E.

  Polhill-Turner, Capt.

  Whitwell, J.

  Power, R.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Yeaman, J.

  Ripley, H. W.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  TELLERS.

  Salt, T.

  Dyke, Sir W. H.

  Sanderson, T. K.

  Winn, R.

CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS (IRELAND) (APPLICATIONS FOR REMISSIONS).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  CAPTAIN NOLANrose to move for
  "a Return of the number of Applications for total or partial Remissions of Criminal Punishment awarded in Ireland during the years 1874, 1875, and 1876; stating in each case by whom the application was made, and whether it was wholly or partially acceded to, or whether it was refused."
  The hon. and gallant Member said, to his surprise he found that his Motion was to be opposed, but he could not understand upon what grounds the Government were prepared to resist it. The Return in question was wholly unconnected with political offences, for there were none in Ireland during the period specified. When memorials were got up by the friends of prisoners, believing in their innocence or the mitigating circumstances of their case, it was usual to obtain signatures in the neighbourhood, and the matter was then referred to the Chairman of the county. He had himself signed such memorials, and he should not be ashamed if they were all published in The Times with his name attached. An impression prevailed in some parts of the country that punishments were remitted on the recommendation of influential persons gene-
  1900
  rally connected with the Conservative Party. If that impression were wrong, nothing could dispel it more effectually than the production of the Return for which he had moved.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Applications for total or partial Remissions of Criminal Punishments awarded in Ireland during the years 1874, 1875, and 1876; stating in each case by whom the application was made, and whether it was wholly or partially acceded to, or whether it was refused."—(Captain Nolan.)
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. WHALLEYasked in what manner the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant was exercised in dealing with applications for the remission of punishment? It had been laid down by the Home Secretary that regard could not be paid to representations from the convict, lest the chance of supporting such applications by new facts should tempt prisoners to withhold them on their trial, and so defeat justice. If that were not the general rule they must come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary adopted it only in reference to certain cases. He supported the Motion for the Return.
  MR. BIGGARrose to address the House, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTTEE—Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. No. 25.))
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Treasury and Exchequer Bills; Burial Acts Consolidation (27).
Committee—Referred to Select Committee—Public Record Office (8).

THE EASTERN QUESTION—NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to ask him whether there is any information which he will feel at liberty to make known with respect to the negotiations understood to be proceeding on the subject of the Eastern Question?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Negotiations are going on with regard to the Eastern Question. I hope that before long I shall be able to make a statement on the subject to your Lordships; but, at present, matters are not in such a position as to enable me to do so.

PURLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL.
(Nos. 8–21.) (The Lord Chancellor.)
PURLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL.

  COMMITTEE (on Re-commitment.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment), read.
  After a short conversation, which was inaudible—
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was at the instance of noble Lords, Members of that House, who had filled the office of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of counties that he had introduced clauses to make the Bill apply to counties. He was prepared, in accordance with an intimation given by him on a former occasion, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; but it was to be understood that it was the Bill, and not the whole subject, that was to be so referred.
  Order discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.

BURIALS ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(No. 27.) (The Lord President.)
BURIALS ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not think that any apology is needed from me in bringing forward the important subject with which this Bill proposes to deal, and which I shall attempt to explain in a few words. The importance of the subject is so great—an importance which has been admitted for so many years, and which has given rise to so many discussions both in and out of Parliament—that this fact alone, I think, would warrant and justify the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take on the present occasion. Indeed, so important has the question been considered by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that on the first night of the Session he commented on the absence of any allusion to it in the Speech delivered by command of Her Majesty from the Throne, and seemed to think that it ought to have been made the subject of one of the paragraphs of the Speech. The importance of the matter has been recognized now for a number of years; for I find that in the year 1840, on a Motion in the other House of Parliament, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Health of Towns.
  1834
  Though this subject was in no way part of the subject referred to them, yet the importance of it became so manifest that the Committee was obliged to go into the question; and the result was that, from the evidence taken on that occasion, Mr. Mackinnon, either that year or shortly afterwards (1842), moved for a Select Committee of the other House to consider the expediency of legislation in respect of interments in densely populated towns or places. The Secretary of State for the Home Department at that time, Sir James Graham, sufficiently recognized the importance of dealing with this question from a sanitary point of view with regard to the health of the community, and he acknowledged that the Motion was a result of the Report of the Committee; and a Bill was introduced in that year or the year afterwards for the purpose of preventing interment in towns. Sir James Graham declined to sup - port the Bill, stating that the Government would consider the subject, and that a comprehensive Report upon the whole matter was then under consideration. That Report was afterwards presented; and any one who was acquainted with the gentleman who drew up the Report would be perfectly satisfied that it was a very exhaustive one—I mean Mr. Chadwick, who was eminently calculated to deal with matters of this kind, and whose report, therefore, was extremely valuable. Not long after the Government had taken it up Mr. Mackinnon called attention to the Report of the Committee, and also to the Report of Mr. Chadwick, and to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had pointed out that interments in towns were injurious to the public health. Then there was a Commission issued to inquire into the health of towns; and though no special attention was called to, or reference made to that Committee, to inquire into the subject of interments, the evidence as to the pollution of water, as to sewers, and the deterioration of the atmosphere in various parts of the country was so great that it still occupied the attention of the other House of Parliament. And though at that time Sir James Graham declined to legislate, on the ground of the difficulty of legislating on a subject of such delicacy and magnitude, in respect of which the feelings of the people might be aroused by an interference with interments in church-

  1835
  yards, yet he admitted that something was necessary to be done. A Resolution was carried against the Government of the day, that it was necessary to take up and deal with the subject. Then we have a Bill introduced by the late Lord Carlisle—then Lord Morpeth. We have also, in 1848, the Public Health Act, and Sir George Grey informed the House of Commons at the time that there was a Bill in preparation dealing with the question. This was followed by the Nuisances Removal Act. Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Carlisle, and Mr. Chadwick, all recognized strongly the injury to public health caused by interment in towns, and an Act was passed authorizing Her Majesty in Council to close burial grounds where it should be clearly shown they were injurious to public health. In 1852 again my noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) introduced a measure designed to affect the metropolis. In doing so, he explained that the previous legislation had not been successful, inasmuch as during two years of the operation of that legislation no burial grounds had been closed. But though at the outset it only applied to the metropolis, its principle was extended, and during the succeeding year another Bill was brought in, whose provisions, under certain conditions, affected the whole country. The effect was to put an end to all intramural interments within the metropolis as well as in most of the large towns throughout the country. The necessity of that measure had become apparent from the fact that during the six years before its introduction no burial ground had been closed by an Order in Council. It may be convenient that I should state what is the general law on the subject of burials. At Common Law every person has a right to be interred in the churchyard of the parish in which he dies; but at Common Law there is no indiscriminate power to close any burial place on the ground that it is injurious to public health. This can be done only under the Public Health Act, or the Nuisances Removal Act. Under the Ecclesiastical Law, when the parish churchyard is consecrated, the parson of the parish is bound to read the service of the Church of England over every person who is brought there for interment. Before 1852 there were threeclasses of burial grounds—namely,
  1836
  the churchyards attached to the parish churchs, the commercial cemeteries, and the private burial-grounds. As to the first of those classes, there is, I believe, no obligation on any parish to provide a churchyard; but when one is provided, it is vested in the parson as his freehold, subject to the right of every inhabitant of the parish to be buried there. There is, however, no obligation on any one to be buried in the parish churchyard—a man may, if he chooses, be buried in his own garden. The second class—the commercial cemeteries—are usually established by Act of Parliament, and when they are established the Cemeteries Clauses Act imposes on the companies who own them certain obligations as to enclosure and decent maintenance: the companies are to provide consecrated and unconsecrated ground, and when once they have obtained land for burial purposes they cannot devote it to any other purpose. The third class belongs either to individuals or religious congregations. Since 1852 and 1853 a fourth class of burial-grounds has been established under various Acts. The first of these applied to the metropolis; but they have since been extended to various parts of the country. Since 1853 no fewer than eight Acts relating to burials have been passed, the last of them in 1871. Under these Acts, and under the existing laws, when a burial-ground is closed by Order in Council, on the representation of the Secretary of State, the Vestry of the parish in which such burial-ground is situated is to be summoned, and it has power, to set up a Burial Board if it should so think fit. It cannot, however, be compelled to do so. It is almost unnecessary that I should inform your Lordships that such has been the case in Northampton, where the Vestry declined to avail itself of that permissive power, and there persons were buried in an unconsecrated burial-ground. Again, as the law stands at present it contains an additional anomaly. Neither the Vestry nor the Burial Board which it may have set up have powers for the compulsory purchase of land; but if the Burial Board do establish a burial-place it is bound to provide consecrated ground therein—consecrated ground must be provided for the members of the Church of England, although a churchyard may not be needed for the wants of a parish—that is to say,

  1837
  consecrated ground may exist without unconsecrated, but the latter cannot exist without the former. I now come to the areas of the burial districts. When the Burial Acts were first put in operation the parochial area was adopted—that is, the areas of the burial districts were the same as the Poor Law parishes. But afterwards an extension and the union of several parochial areas became not uncommon. Much confusion and complication resulted from this. There are instances in which one burial area overlaps another, and in which one portion of a burial area belongs to one parish and another portion to another parish, and owing to causes which I need not particularize it has sometimes been found impossible to decide in which jurisdiction certain churchyards lie. To show the intricacies of the Burial Acts and the necessity of consolidation and amendment in the case of those Acts, I will quote the opinion of three learned Judges. Mr. Justice Crompton, in delivering the judgment of the Court in the case of "Regina v. Coleshill Overseers," said—
  "It is impossible to come to anything like a decision which is perfectly satisfactory to our own minds amidst such confusion as exists in the provisions of the Burial Acts."
  Mr. Justice Blackburn, in the case of "Regina v. Walcot," said—
  "There are, I believe, ten statutes all applying to this one subject-matter, to be read together, and, if possible, reconciled. No wonder, therefore, that difficulties arise on the proper construction of the different sections of these Acts."
  Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same case, spoke of "this complicated, entangled, and confused mass of legislation." I think that these opinions, as to the necessity of some legislation to explain and set forth with more perfect clearness the actual state of the burial laws, are a sufficient justification for the Government in their attempt to deal with the subject of consolidation and amendment. I do not, however, mean to rest my case solely on the necessity for consolidation. As I have endeavoured to explain, from 1840 to 1853, the general question was treated entirely as one of sanitary necessity. But it is to be borne in mind that this legislation was only partial, because it applied only to the metropolis and to certain parts of the
  1838
  country. In 1871 a Commission was appointed, which, among other things, was to inquire into, and report upon, the administration of the sanitary laws and the constitution of the sanitary authorities. That Commission was composed of men well qualified for the task imposed on them. I will read to your Lordships one extract from the Report of the Commission—
  "If it were not for the fear of delaying legislation, we should certainly recommend that all the Burial Acts should be consolidated and incorporated in the new statute; but under any circumstances the numerous Acts on this subject should be consolidated.…. The administration of the Burial Acts is under the Home Office, and should pass to the new central authority."
  Well, the Bill now before your Lordships is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of that Commission. It purposes to consolidate the Burial Acts. It also proposes to treat the matter in a sanitary point of view, and to take from the Secretary of State the powers which he now possesses in respect of burial places, and transfer those powers to the Local Government Board. The latter proposal is made for an obvious reason—namely, that the Secretary of State has no authority to enforce inspection, which is so necessary in respect of burial-grounds, whereas the local Government Board can be readily made available for that purpose. Another provision of the Bill which the Government regard as of great importance is that it sets up a Burial Authority in every part of the country; because it may be that, although the Vestry is moved to consider the question, it may decline to do so, and there is no power to compel it. The Bill proposes that in every parish of the country there shall be a Burial Authority, which may be the Vestry, or a Committee of the Vestry, or even the Sanitary Board. That is the machinery by which it is proposed to carry out the amended law. The Bill contains no fewer than 88 clauses, but I shall only indicate its main provisions. The Bill proposes to define more strictly the existing powers for closing burial-grounds, and it imposes on the Burial Authority the legal obligation of providing new burial-grounds; and I call the attention of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) to this—that it does so on these

  1839
  grounds, either that the burial ground of the parish is closed, or that there is not consecrated and unconsecrated ground sufficient and suitable for the inhabitants, or wherever the authorities think that, having regard to the population, additional burial-ground is required. There is a further important provision which will, no doubt, receive the attention of the noble Earl. There is a section in the Bill—the 6th—which enacts that, on requisition from a certain proportion of the ratepayers representing that the district is not provided with consecrated and unconsecrated ground "sufficient and suitable for the burial of the inhabitants thereof," the Burial Authority must provide new ground, unless the Burial Authority shall think that it is not required. But from the decision of the Burial Authority that ground is not required there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, who may require the Burial Authority to provide ground if he thinks that the existing burial-ground is not sufficient and suitable for the burial of the inhabitants of the district. Of course, the words "sufficient and suitable" will include the religious views of those who make the appeal. The Burial Authority and the Home Secretary will take religious views into consideration when determining whether or not the existing burial ground is "sufficient and suitable." The Secretary of State will not be compelled to set up consecrated in addition to unconsecrated ground, if he shall think there is sufficient consecrated ground in the parish churchyard. Except in cases where other provision is already made by existing Acts, the parochial system will be adopted by the Bill, and will confine Burial Boards to Poor Law parishes; and compulsory powers are given to the Sanitary Authorities to obtain land for burial-grounds. The Sanitary Authorities will moreover be vested with the powers of every Burial Authority within the sanitary districts, so as to provide against the case where a Vestry may neglect its duties. Large powers are also given for the purpose of promoting economy by enabling Burial Authorities to combine, under the supervision of the Local Government Board. I have now given a sketch of the main provisions of the Bill. I will now revert to what occurred in your Lordships' House last
  1840
  year when my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) brought forward his Resolutions. I do so for the purpose of answering by anticipation objections which, from the remarks he then made, I presume my noble Friend may make to this Bill. My noble Friend based his Resolutions on the ground that every person had a right to be buried in the churchyard of the parish where he resided, and that there were a great number of persons who, not being Churchmen, objected to being compelled to use the Services of the Church over the bodies of their deceased friends; and he maintained that those persons suffered a grievance. On the part of the Government I then endeavoured to show that, although in some small parishes a state of things might exist that might seem to justify that objection, yet the grievance of a want of burial places for such persons did not exist in any of the large towns of the country, and that, taking the country generally, the grievance must be confined to a very small number of persons, if they deducted from the whole population the Churchmen and the persons who, though not Churchmen, do not object to the existing state of things. I showed also that the number to whom it might be a grievance was constantly and steadily diminishing. I stated that up to 1866 the number of cemeteries established was 413; that between 1866 and 1875 235 were opened, and during 1875–76 36 more—making a total of 684. I also stated that since 1852 above 2,000 churchyards had been closed, and that by a Return made to the other House, out of 6,800 parishes, the non-Churchmen had burial places in 2,230, or one in every three parishes. I have made inquiries into the number of cemeteries provided since the date up to which the Returns were completed when I last addressed your Lordships on this subject, and I find that 38 Burial Boards have been appointed since that date up to the close of the past year, and nine during the present year; but, as several of these Boards have not yet succeeded in obtaining land, it is impossible for me to state with accuracy the total of the population now provided with cemeteries. I have further to observe that there is every reason to believe that under the law, when amended by this Bill, churchyards will

  1841
  be closed in greater numbers, and with greater rapidity, than they have hitherto been. I am not now speaking of large towns; because in those, church-yards do not exist, but of rural districts in which certain churchyards still open ought to be closed—churchyards in which the bones of the dead are brought to the surface at each new interment. It is, however, estimated that out of 22,000,000 people in this country, about 14,000,000 are not subject to the grievance; and from the remaining 8,000,000 your Lordships must deduct the members of the Established Church and those non-Churchmen who do not object to the Burial Service of the Church—leaving a very small residue whom the grievance affects. This Bill will, I believe, greatly facilitate and accelerate the movement in the desired direction. In many rural districts churchyards which ought to be closed are not closed, simply because there is no one to put the law into operation; and even if there were, there would be other difficulties in the way of bringing about the desired issue. This Bill indicates the Authority which is to take the requisite steps, and facilitate the object to be gained. Last year the noble Earl brought forward these two Resolutions:—
  "That it is desirable that the law relating to the burial of the dead in England should be amended: (1), by giving facilities for the interment of deceased persons without the use of the burial service of the Church of England in churchyards in which they have a right of interment, if the relatives or friends having the charge of their funerals shall so desire; (2), by enabling the relatives or friends having charge of the funeral of any deceased person to conduct such funeral in any churchyard in which the deceased had a right of interment with such Christian and orderly religious observances as to them may seem fit."—[3, Hansard, ccxxix 588.]
  I will take the second of these Resolutions first. I object to the proposal contained in it. I object to that proposal, because it is wholly subversive of the system which has prevailed in this country for many centuries; and it never has been recognized on the removal of disabilities. For instance, at one period no baptism of any child in this country could be registered unless that baptism was performed in the parish church. That state of things was altered by a provision which allowed the registration of baptism performed by other persons than the parson of the parish; but when
  1842
  that provision was made, no leave was given to any other person to go into the parish church, and there baptize a child. Again, up to 1836 no marriage was lawful in this country unless it was celebrated in the parish church. That was put an end to; but when they permitted persons who objected to be married in the parish church to have their marriages made legal, they did not permit those persons to go into the parish church and celebrate their marriages there. I object, then, to the second of the noble Earl's Resolutions. A measure introduced by my noble Friend the Lord Steward (Earl Beauchamp), and which passed through your Lordships' House some years ago, was framed on the principle of the first Resolution, and Her Majesty's Government have no objection to that Resolution now. Accordingly, a clause has been introduced in the Bill now before your Lordships which I think will carry out the principle of that Resolution in a satisfactory manner. I have not alluded to this clause before, because I preferred to rest my case on sanitary and consolidation grounds; but, inasmuch as the clause deals with the Motion brought forward by my noble Friend last year, I think it right to call special attention to it; and, as it is rather long, I will read it. The clause says—
  "Where the relative or person taking upon himself the duty of providing for the burial of a deceased person shall, by notice in writing to the minister whose duty it is to perform, when required, a religious service in the churchyard in which such deceased person is entitled by law to be buried, represent that the religious service or ceremony (if any) will be performed elsewhere, and request that the burial shall be permitted to take place in the churchyard without the performance therein of the burial service of the Church of England, the burial shall be permitted to take place therein at the ordinary time without the performance of any religious service or of any other ceremony; and this section shall in all Courts and proceedings be held to be a sufficient justification to the incumbent or minister for not performing any religious service. Notice under this section shall be given a convenient time (not being less than twenty-four hours) before the time of the burial."
  That clause, I think, carries out most distinctly the proposal of the first, at all events, of the two Resolutions which my noble Friend brought forward last year. I have now endeavoured to bring before your Lordships, in as brief a manner as I could compatibly with the

  1843
  importance of the subject, the main provisions of the Bill which I have now to present. It is a Bill which I believe to be thoroughly practical and useful. It will establish a uniform system throughout the country, remove many of the anomalies that are now admitted to exist, and tend to promote the health and well-being of the community.
  Bill to consolidate, with Amendments, the Burial Acts presented by The LORD PRESIDENT.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it was a very convenient course on the part of the Minister who introduced the Bill, after describing its provisions, to invite the House on the first reading of the measure to enter into a discussion of the whole question. It would certainly be an inconvenient course if it were generally followed. The noble Duke had, however, given them a very clear statement of the history of legislation on that subject. He had also, he believed, described with perfect accuracy the present state of the law; and he thought the noble Duke had made out a case for the consolidation of the various statutes bearing on that subject—indeed, he (Earl Granville) was not sure that a good case might not be made out for the consolidation of the law on almost every subject comprised in the Statute Book. The noble Duke had likewise made out a case for some change in the law upon sanitary grounds. There was no doubt that great scandal had arisen, for instance, from the state of things which existed at Northampton, and the noble Duke stated that this Bill would meet such difficulties as existed there. But when the noble Duke alluded to the debate of last year, and to the pledge which he then gave on behalf of the Government, he (Earl Granville) must say that he did not understand that to be so much a pledge in reference to consolidation or to sanitary grounds as one that the Government would take into consideration the best way of dealing with a subject of very grave importance both to those who did not belong to the Established Church and to those who did so; for, not only did the Dissenters feel that they laboured under a great grievance, but many, both of the clergy and the laity, of the Established Church concurred in that opinion, and thought that in the interests of the
  1844
  Church itself that grievance ought to be removed. The present Bill appeared to him, he confessed, not in the slightest degree to fulfil the conditions of the pledge given last year as he understood it. The Bill seemed to contain enactments giving facilities for closing churchyards and for forming burial beards. It proposed to constitute Burial Authorities throughout the country, who were to be the Vestries, unless the Vestries chose to confer their functions on sanitary authorities. There was to be a certain check over them through the Local Government Board; and also powers were to be given to the Secretary of State in the matter. But with regard to the existing grievance he thought that the Nonconformists had a right to complain of the measure. Their grievance was this—that having a right by common law to be buried in the churchyards of the country, that right was accompanied by conditions which in their opinion were entirely contrary to their religious freedom. In order to meet that grievance he understood the noble Duke to propose that if a requisition was made and was disregarded by the Burial Authority, in that case the Secretary of State would have the power to order the ratepayers of a parish to purchase additional land either wholly unconsecrated or partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated., and not merely to do it on sanitary grounds, but also to take religious grounds into view; and the noble Duke said that the Secretary of State would be always ready to consider the religious aspect of the matter. It was not very consoling to find that a power was thus given, should it be largely applied, to tax the ratepayers of about one-half the country for providing those additional burial grounds. He thought there was nothing less likely than that the large body of Dissenters in this country, with their feelings on that subject, would themselves voluntarily come forward and invite the Secretary of State to tax them and their fellow-citizens in order to do the particular thing which they objected to—namely, to exclude them from the churchyards of their parishes where they thought that by law and by equity they had a right to be buried. The only comfort the noble Duke gave them as to that was that he proposed to allow them, as was their right, to be admitted

  1845
  into the churchyards, but that they should be debarred from giving any vent whatever to their religious feelings at the most sacred moment and on the most solemn occasion in their lives. They were, when admitted there, to do that which every one of their Lordships would object in the strongest manner to doing, which was to consign the remains of those who were dearest to them to the grave without the slightest religious observance. The Bill was meant to be a settlement of the religious difficulties between Churchmen and Dissenters, but he (Earl Granville) did not anticipate the slightest good from it. The noble Duke had quoted some statistics which he seemed to think made a strong case and minimized that grievance; but on the second reading of the Bill he (Earl Granville) believed he should be able to prove the converse of what the noble Duke had said on almost every point.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will not commit the solecism of criticising a measure which is not before the House; but perhaps I may be allowed, from the peculiar circumstances in which I stand, to say a few words in order to represent to your Lordships what are the desires and the feelings of one large portion of the community in reference to the Bill which the noble Duke has propounded. I have received during the Recess a very large Petition, the number of names appended to which I cannot exactly state, but the clergyman who forwarded it to me stated that the names, arranged in two columns, occupied seven yards of paper. I have received another Petition with about 400 signatures attached to it, and another with about 90. All who signed pressed upon me and upon the Bishops generally the expediency of taking or of urging on the Government to take some such step as the noble Duke's Bill seems to shadow forth. Even from the discussions which have occurred in this House on the subject, all your Lordships must see that this is a very difficult and intricate question. All questions are difficult and intricate which have to do with men's feelings, even when those feelings may not be very wisely directed; and even to deal with prejudices of which we disapprove must be a very difficult matter indeed. I am, there-
  1846
  fore, not disposed to criticize too minutely the mode in which the Government proposes to deal with this difficult question. At any rate, the noble Duke has, by the present measure, redeemed at the earliest moment the pledge which he gave last Session—that he would endeavour, as far as he could consistently with his feelings, to meet the difficulty and the grievance which were said to exist. No doubt this measure comes before your Lordships as a sanitary measure; and in that light, perhaps, a little discredit may be cast on it; because we know, of course, that it is not a great regard for the health of the community, but rather the desire to set at rest a difficult and annoying question, that has called forth the present Bill. I shall not myself be disposed to quarrel with the Bill; because, dealing with the matter in a sanitary aspect, it proceeds to deal with more difficult matters than those which concern the public health. The question relating to the burial of the dead is one in which I think all must feel deeply interested. It is quite an old story now that our churchyards in country places as well as in towns have been desecrated: ever since the time when Shakespeare called attention to the matter, and asked whether these bones of ours "cost no more the breeding, but to play at loggats with them." "Mine ache," he says, "to think on't." During the 300 years that have passed since certainly the desecration of our churchyards in this way has not diminished. With a greatly and rapidly increasing population no means have been taken to avoid this evil; and I think it is a good thing that an attempt is now to be made to deal with the evil, both on sanitary grounds and also on the higher religious ground of promoting reverence for our places of sepulture. Most of your Lordships have travelled in Ireland, and know, I dare say, the unwise reverence with which old churchyards there are regarded, although generation after generation has made use of them and they ought long since to have been closed—many of them being reduced to a condition very unlike a place for Christian sepulture. And since I have taken charge of the diocese with which I am immediately connected, I have had complaints made to me that in the neighbourhood of some church-

  1847
  yards there is evidence of the desecration that takes place in country districts. Therefore, it is in itself a good measure that enables proper steps to be taken to close these churchyards. The manner in which the churchyards pollute the wells—sometimes in the midst of the villages—may perhaps in a great degree account for the frequent outbreaks of fever in so many of our country districts. Therefore I will not quarrel with any measure which proposes both to care for our health and to restore our churchyards to the reverent aspect which they ought to bear; and which also indirectly, but I trust not so ineffectually as the noble Earl supposes, attempts to deal with the religious question. If I understand the noble Duke, the principle of his Bill is this—that in every community throughout the country, and in every parish, every person who is a subject of the Queen shall have a right to a proper place of sepulture; and if in any neighbourhood it shall so happen that the ancient churchyard is not a fit place for sepulture, there shall be easy means provided for obtaining a new burial ground. I presume that it is also a part of the noble Duke's proposal that all persons who now feel aggrieved because the religious opinions they held in life may not follow them to the grave, but that over their bodies must be read a Service against which they conscientiously objected during their years of health—it is, I hope, part of the noble Duke's proposal that this grievance where it exists shall be removed. I think it right to state, as a representative of the Clergy in this House, that I am aware that in the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury the question was carefully debated whether it would not be wise and well to provide some service which would be more acceptable to our Dissenting brethren than the ordinary Burial Service of the Church of England. At the present moment the Convocation of the Provinces of Canterbury and York are engaged, under Letters Patent from the Queen, in re-considering and revising the Rubrics of the Prayer Book of the Church of England, and it is certainly—so far as the matter has gone—the wish of the Clergy that advantage should be taken of this revision to introduce some service which may be read over our Dissenting brethren without violating the scruples
  1848
  which they feel against the whole service of our Church as it at present exists. I will add—if I may be allowed to do so—that when this matter comes into Committee, I will take the opportunity of making some suggestions that may meet the views of the Clergy in this respect. There will then remain but one grievance. Every man, whether a member of the Church of England or not, will be fully entitled to be buried in the churchyard of his own parish, provided that churchyard still remains—the only grievance will be that he will be buried by the minister of the parish. Now, I do not think it would be wise to overlook that which some regard as a mere sentimental grievance, that a man when dead cannot have the service read over his body by the person who was his spiritual adviser during his life. But the effect of the proposal, as I understand it, is this—that in almost every parish there will soon be a place adjoining that in which members of the Church of England are buried where the few—and they are very few, I believe—who object to the presence and sound of the voice of a clergyman of the Church of England, will be able to have the full services of their own minister. We know from examinations which took place before the discussions of last year that almost all those Dissenting Bodies who have services, departing from the old Puritanical system of burying the dead without any service, have adopted portions of the service of the Church of England. It is, then, no great grievance to have this service, either entire or altered as Convocation proposes, read over them; but if any have such an objection to the presence and the voice of the clergyman of the Church of England, that they cannot bear that he should read the service over the remains of their friends, in almost every such case, so far as lean understand this Bill, there will be a place provided where they will have it all their own way. I do not say that this meets all the difficulties of the case, but it goes a long way towards it. The noble Duke may be fully entitled to be considered as having redeemed the pledge he made last year, so far as it is possible for him to do so consistently with the thousand difficulties that cluster around this question. Some such scheme as we have heard, starting from a sanitary point of view—about which I will not quarrel—

  1849
  will minimise the difficulties that must surround this question, and I am one of those who think upon the whole that it is not a bad thing to accept half of a good measure if you cannot get the whole. It is not, it seems, possible, in the state of public feeling, to have such a Resolution carried as the noble Earl proposed last year. I think the feeling of the Clergy is quite as strong on the other side, and that we are quite as much entitled to consider their feelings as the feelings of others. If, therefore, we can accomplish what the Bill aims at we shall have done good work. I do not suppose that the Bill will satisfy everyone. Of course there are persons who delight in a grievance, and it will be a very serious thing for such persons to have their grievance diminished to the very smallest possible dimensions; but I am sure that there will be no disposition in this House to make political capital out of a measure so important as this, and I hope that our Dissenting brethren will not try to make political capital out of this question. It is for the interest of all that these unseemly conflicts over the graves of our departed friends should as soon as possible come to an end. We are all Christians, living together in one community, recognizing the same laws, human and divine. It may be inevitable that we should have controversies one with another; but let us choose same better battle-ground on which to fight out these controversies. Let not the bitterness be engendered which is sure to be caused by continuing controversies of this kind on so very difficult and tender a subject, and I do not despair but that when this measure has been fully considered in this House, and such Amendments introduced into it as the Government will be ready to listen to in Committee, that it will be acceptable to the Clergy and members of the Church of England generally, and also acceptable to the great majority of our sensible Dissenting brethren.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed (No.27.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.