Sitting of 9 July 1878

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Lords Amendments considered—Belfast Improvement.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment* [252]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [251].
First Reading—Intermediate Education (Ireland)* [249].
Second Reading—British Museum (Transfer of Collection)* [236].
Select Committee—Corrib (Galway) River* [225], nominated.
Committee—Highways (re-comm.)* [214]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Truro Chapter* [234]; Habitual Drunkards * [27–250].
Considered as amended—Weights and Measures* [229].
Third Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland)* [224]; County of Hertford* [240]; Freshwater Fish Protection* [235]; Tenant Right (Ireland)* [31], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BELFAST IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  (By Order.)

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. J. P. Corry.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move that the Lords' Amendments be considered this day three months. His object was to secure that the Bill should be thrown out; and he would at once proceed, as shortly as he could, to point out his reasons for taking this course, and the grounds upon which he based his opposition to the Bill. He ought, in the first instance, to explain, that in common with other Members of that House, he had received a paper called a "Statement," which had been issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. He did not propose to refer specially to this document, except in regard to one point—namely, that which related to the improvement of the Blackstaff River—and it was upon this point that he intended, in a great measure, to base his arguments in opposition to the further progress of the Bill. It set forth that he (Mr. Biggar) had already opposed the Bill in several ways, and it went on to specify the occasions—
  "It appears that—1st, before the Commission on Local Government and Taxation of Towns (Ireland) which sat in Belfast in December, 1861; 2ndly, in a Petition against the Bill, deposited by him in the Private Bill Office on the 30th day of January last; 3rdly, before the Select Committee of the House of Lords to whom this Bill was referred, Mr. Biggar has made certain charges against the Corporation."
  With regard to the Commission of Inquiry, which sat in Belfast, he had certainly been examined as a witness there by those who represented the Town Council. Of course, his evidence was on record, and he was prepared to defend the whole, or any part of it. He might say that he had not intended to make any reference on this occasion to that evidence, for this reason—that there was no power in that House to cross-examine

  1055
  him, and he did not like to bring general or specific charges agaiast any persons, unless they had the right by cross-examining him of testing the value of his statements. In the Petition lodged against this Bill, in the Private Bill Office, the House of Lords decided that the parties had no locus standi; so that, as far as that document was concerned, it had no value in regard to the conduct of the Bill, either in the House or before the Select Committee. He was, however, examined before the Select Committee of the House of Lords; but he was placed in this difficulty—that on that occasion he was only examined upon a very narrow part of the Bill—namely, as to whether or not the decision of the Town Council or of Committees of the Town Council of the borough of Belfast should be subject to an appeal to some independent tribunal outside, and the decision of the Lords Committee against that contention was not given on the merits, but simply on the fact that there was no precedent for such a provision as an appeal against the steps taken by the Town Council. The Lords Committee, therefore, refused to insert a clause giving the appeal for which he asked. He had not read the Petition against the Bill, and he really did not know what the allegations in the Petition were, and to what extent the prayer of the Petitioners was entertained by the Committee of the House of Lords. The paper he had just referred to went on to say—
  "Mr. Biggar has made certain charges against the Corporation which may he summarized as follows:—1. That the members of the Council are almost exclusively Conservatives and Protestants, and are, therefore, unfit to be trusted with the powers usually conferred upon Town Councils."
  Now, this statement very materially and seriously exaggerated what he had intended to say; but, at the same time, it was not very far from the fact, because in point of fact, two-thirds of the people of Belfast, in round numbers, were non-Catholic, and the remaining one-third Catholic. In almost every municipal election that took place in Belfast the question of politics was generally the sole question raised before the ratepayers in regard to the eligibility or otherwise of the different persons who offered themselves as candidates. The result of course was that the Conservative Party, which was paramount in the
  1056
  borough, had got all the representation into its own hands. Only Protestant candidates were returned, and the Roman Catholics, as far as the representation was concerned, were unrepresented, except in the person of one gentleman. The result of this state of things was, that although the Town Council could come to a decision upon a question of town improvement or in favour of promoting this Bill, yet, as a matter of fact, one-third of the population—namely, all the Catholic inhabitants, were, practically, unrepresented; their opinions were not asked or considered; they would not be listened to, if they were given; and they had no special locus standi before a Committee of the Lords or Commons. The consequence was, that they had no means whatever of making their views known, except in opposing the Bill in the way in which they had offered opposition to the present measure. He had acted on their behalf. They sent a Petition to him which he presented to the House, and it was referred to the Private Bill Office; where, he presumed, it remained without being examined by the Committee who inquired into the merits of the Bill or being allowed to influence their decision. The statement went on to say that among the charges made by him (Mr. Biggar) against the Corporation was one
  "that the Improvement Committee of the Council are guilty of improper conduct in furthering their private interests at the expense of the public."
  Now on this point he had given evidence before the Commission, and it was upon the same point that he gave evidence before the Committee upstairs; and he believed that the charges he had made were, to a very great extent, based on facts. There was one particular case within his own knowledge that he might mention, where a member of the Town Council, a timber merchant and a large speculator, had built upon a plot of land in front of a row of houses. The buildings he had erected were within 20 feet of the front of the existing houses, notwithstanding that it was part of the law of the borough of Belfast that there should be no street less than 30 feet wide. The only answer made to this accusation was, that the member of the Council who was said to have done this was merely a partner in the ownership of

  1057
  the property in question. He could, if necessary, give a number of other cases to show that building speculators and men who supplied building materials for builders, had facilities constantly given to them through this sort of influence. It was alleged that the members of the Council always favoured their own friends, and it was this feeling which led to the opposition in the House of Lords, the Petitioner being a large manufacturer and a large speculator on his own account, who justly complained that greater facilities were given to persons who were connected with the promoters of the Bill than to himself. That was not, however, the reason why he (Mr. Biggar) proposed that the Lords' Amendment to the Bill should be considered on that day three months. The next allegation in the "Statement" was as follows:—
  "In the House of Lords he was allowed to appear in the character of a witness before the Select Committee upon the Bill, and gave full expression to his opinions; after which, the Committee called upon the Corporation neither for any rebutting evidence, nor for any reply."
  Now, he had simply given expression to his opinions on one point—namely, whether or not there should be an appeal from the decision of the Improvement Committee and the decision of the Select Committee was based not on the merits of the case, but simply upon the ground that there was no precedent for such an appeal. He did not, on this occasion, propose to insert any clause to carry out his views. It would not be practically an Amendment to the Amendments introduced by the House of Lords, and, therefore, according to the Rules of the House, it could not be put from the Chair. Otherwise he should have raised the question, and have given his reasons why the Bill should go before the Local Government Board in Dublin. He might say, in passing, that his views were not in favour of centralization in a general way; but he did think that such a body as the Local Government Board would only be doing its duty if it would see that the Corporation of Belfast really carried out its engagements and obeyed the provisions of the law. The next allegation contained in the "Statement" was this—
  "As Mr. Biggar's objections have thus had full consideration before proper tribunals, it is submitted that, even if they were relevant to
  1058
  the question before the House, they should not be entertained at the present stage. They are objections which might possibly have been urged, and, in fact, although not pressed, were taken as objections to the Bill in its passage through the House of Commons; but are in no way relevant to the Amendments made in the House of Lords which the House of Commons is now asked to consider."
  In reference to the House of Commons, he might remark that the promoters of the Bill had made great objections to the locus standi of certain Petitioners against the Bill. They succeeded in some cases, but not in others. Without going into details upon the question, he might say that it seemed to him the Petitioners against the Bill had not acted in a very business-like or judicious manner; for they entered into negotiations with the promoters of the Bill for what they considered to be "concessions." The result was, that as these negotiations lasted until the Bill was ready to go into Committee, the Petitioners were not prepared to give evidence in support of their case Practically, although a Petition had been lodged, there was no opposition, and the Committee of the House of Commons were not called upon to inquire into the merits of the case at all. The "statement" went on to say—
  "The number of persons who signed the Petition against the Bill in the form in which it went to the House of Lords was 21; of these only one or two appeared before the Committee, and the Council agreed to insert a clause which met the only substantial criticism made on their behalf upon the Bill."
  In point of fact, two specific objections against the Bill were made by Mr. Boss, the Petitioner, whose case was considered, and one of these was allowed by the Committee of the House of Lords— namely, that the promoters of the Bill should be bound to carry out their improvement works within one year after the period at which they might take possession of the land for that purpose. In that point Mr. Ross succeeded; but, in his other objections against the Bill, he did not succeed. The document to which he had been referring pointed out that there were only 21 Petitioners against the Bill; but he had already explained that the promoters were most determined in their opposition to the locus standi of the Petitioners, unless the person claiming a right to be heard could show a clear case that his property

  1059
  was affected by the proposed improvements. That condition, of course, operated entirely as a bar to the great bulk of the inhabitants of the town. The effect was this—The members of the Town Council might be elected in November, and they might determine immediately after their election to issue the notices for the promotion of a Bill entirely opposed to the views of the majority of the inhabitants of the borough, and yet the inhabitants would have no locus standi to come before a Committee of either House of Parliament. In point of fact, the inhabitants would be altogether powerless, so far as such a scheme, however objectionable, was concerned. The Catholics, who spoke their views in the Petition lodged against the Bill in the Private Bill Office, gave the only expression of opinion of a public nature which was given either for or against the Bill. There was, he believed, a deputation against the Bill; but he did not know who it represented. There was also a deputation in favour of the Bill; but, so far as public meetings were concerned, or any of the usual means of obtaining a public expression of opinion, or Petitions signed by large numbers of the inhabitants, there was nothing of the sort. The Bill stood before the House simply on its merits, and on its merits he hoped the House would decide against it. The "Statement" said—
  "The Bill has practically the unanimous consent of the Town Council, and for a Bill of this kind an exceptionally unanimous approval from the general body of the inhabitants."
  He would now give the reasons which he wished to adduce against the passing of the Bill; and in doing so he wished, in the first place, to refer to a Report which was only delivered to him yesterday, and which he presumed would be delivered to other hon. Members at the same time.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is not entitled to discuss the whole Bill. He is only entitled to discuss such Amendments as the House of Lords have made in it.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that all the arguments he intended to advance were contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland. He did not intend to read one word of the Bill itself, nor had he any desire to discuss the general
  1060
  merits of the measure; but he intended and he thought he should succeed in basing his arguments in opposition to the Bill upon the particular Amendment which had been inserted by the House of Lords. His contention went entirely in favour of the idea expressed by the Select Committee in their Report, and he proposed to read only 12 lines of that Report, in the belief that the passage, together with his own arguments, would fairly come within the scope of the Amendment. He held in his hand the Report of the Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland, of which Committee he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chairman. In that Report, as it was finally agreed to by the Committee, they said—
  "With regard to Belfast, complaints were made to the Commissioners of a want of attention on the part of the Corporation to the interests of the Roman Catholic portion of the inhabitants, and of their partiality in administering the law compelling the formation of roadways and footpaths in newly-built streets. On the latter point, the Commissioners express an opinion that 'the Corporation should seek to get rid of these clauses altogether, if they find they cannot carry them out fairly; but while they are part of the law of the land, they certainly ought to be so carried out as to leave no colour for the suspicions which are undoubtedly entertained that strict impartiality is not invariably observed.'"
  That was a specific part of the Report which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would duly consider.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the hon. Gentleman read that part of the Report which follows—I mean the part which comes at the end of their observations in regard to Belfast?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would read it in due course. The Committee also said—
  "The Commissioners also report a prevailing opinion among a large portion of the ratepayers that the Corporation are responsible for the continuance of the monster nuisance, caused by the polluted condition of the Blackstaff stream."
  The Committee said further—
  "Your Committee, while calling attention to these subjects, on which the evidence taken before them appears to bear out the views of the Commissioners, have pleasure in expressing their opinion of the generally satisfactory manner in which the municipal affairs of Belfast are managed by the Corporation of that town."

  1061
  He would confine his argument entirely to three lines of the Commissioners' Report—
  "The Commissioners also report a prevailing opinion among a large portion of the ratepayers that the Corporation are responsible for the continuance of the monster nuisance caused by the polluted condition of the Blackstaff stream."
  All he proposed was that the powers of the Town Council to carry out further improvements should not come into operation until they had carried out their scheme for improving the condition of the Blackstaff stream to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board. The facts of the case were brief. The Black-staff stream was an open sewer, receiving the sewage of the whole of the district— a very extensive one—through which it passed for something like a mile. It emptied itself into the River Laggan, on the south-west side of the borough of Belfast, and carried the whole of the sewage of the district along the western part of the borough. In this way two sides of Belfast were enveloped by an open sewer, and in addition to being an open sewer, the stream was used by the millowners on the banks of the stream as a receptacle for the hot water and refuse that came from their steam engines. A very large amount of steam and refuse water was let off, and the Blackstaff stream became polluted by most offensive matter, which was in the highest degree injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the town of Belfast. The Local Government Board had from time to time complained to the borough of Belfast of the Blackstaff nuisance, and the Corporation undertook to remedy it in what they believed would be an effectual manner. They proposed to take the sewage which now fell into this open stream, and to make another sewer as part of a general sewage scheme, which would empty the sewage into the sea below the borough of Belfast. The effect of this would be to do away with the present nuisance, by which two sides of Belfast were enveloped in a filthy stream, and to give to the town two comparatively pure streams. Mr. Bazalgette went over from London and prepared a sewage scheme, which was submitted to the Local Government Board, who agreed in the propriety of it, the Corporation undertaking to carry out the scheme within a reasonable and moderate time. He was not sure that
  1062
  this was so; but he supposed that the Corporation could have borrowed part of the money for carrying out the scheme from the Board of Works. At any rate, they undertook to carry it out. But what had they done? They had carried out some small parts of the scheme, but only some very small parts. No doubt, the completion of the entire scheme would have been of enormous advantage to the borough of Belfast, and would have materially improved the sanitary condition of the town. But instead of having carried out the work which they had bound themselves to the Local Government Board to do, they had this year promoted a Bill in Parliament, by which they took borrowing powers to the extent of £350,000, to enable them to effect certain improvements, and in the meantime the scheme for the general sewerage of the town was postponed sine die. It only proposed to deal with the Blackstaff stream in a very small way, and in a way which, instead of improving matters, would make them worse. The Bill merely proposed to cover in some hundred yards or so of this dirty stream, about two-thirds of the way down, and the result would be that the steam and gas which found its way into this filthy stream would come out at both ends, and be even still more offensive and injurious to the inhabitants. What he contended was, that it was the duty of the Government to see that in common fairness and honesty the Corporation fulfilled its engagements. He held that they were bound to fulfil these engagements before they were allowed to borrow money for other purposes. If they borrowed money for other improvements, they must more or less injure the security they gave to the Local Government Board for carrying out their present liabilities. They proposed under the Bill to carry out fresh improvements at an expense of £350,000, and the inevitable result would be that the taxation which would be necessary under the provisions of the Bill would jeopardize the sewage scheme. He thought the Government, as guardians of the public purse, were bound to see that the Corporation of Belfast fulfilled its original engagements on this point, before undertaking other works. He had only one other word to say, and that was that the plan of the new improvements had been submitted by Mr. Black, the town solicitor,

  1063
  to the Local Government Board, who refused their sanction to it. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Lords' Amendments be taken into consideration on that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. P. CORRYsaid, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Cavan into all the details which he had referred to. He thought the hon. Member had taken a very unusual course in moving such an Amendment at this stage of the measure. The effect of postponing the consideration of the Lords' Amendments would be, of course, that the Bill itself would be lost so far as the present Session was concerned; and there could be no doubt whatever that by this Bill the Corporation of Belfast would be able to effect very extensive and much needed improvements in the town. The necessity for these improvements was generally admitted, and fully justified the Corporation in asking for further powers. The Bill had received the careful consideration of Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and the House of Lords had already agreed to it substantially in the form in which it was originally presented to them. No doubt, the hon. Member for Cavan and his Friends did oppose the Bill in the House of Lords; but the noble Lords who composed the Committee of the other House declined to sanction their objections, and the consequence was that the Bill now came down to the House of Commons for its approval in the final stages. The hon. Member for Cavan had favoured the House with a long dissertation upon the state of the Blackstaff stream. There could be no doubt that the question of sewage in Belfast was an old matter of controversy, and it was the desire of the Corporation that the present state of things should be remedied. Indeed, the promoters of the Bill were taking every pains to mitigate as far as possible the nuisance complained of, and already the hon. Member for Cavan and his Friends had had every opportunity afforded them of representing their views before the
  1064
  local authorities. First of all, the hon. Member was examined by a Select Committee upstairs appointed to consider the question of the Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland. He was next called before the Commissioners in Belfast, and gave evidence there; and, very recently, he gave evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon the present Bill. The complaints of the hon. Member were confined to one particular subject, and they had received very full consideration. That they had not been acceded to was not the fault of the Corporation of Belfast, who were the promoters of the Bill. If anyone was to blame in that respect, it certainly was not the promoters of the measure. It was unnecessary that he (Mr. Corry) should enter into details as to the objects of this Bill for the improvement of the town of Belfast, because those details had already been fully considered by Committees of both Houses of Parliament; and he felt quite certain that the House would not consent to reject a Bill which, after much careful investigation, had been sanctioned by a Select Committee, and was now sent down for the final approval of the House, having almost reached its last stage.
  MR. PORTMAN, as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs, hoped the House would allow him to say a few words before they came to a division. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was quite right in what he said as to his objections not having been pressed before the Committee. He (Mr. Portman) was aware that those objections were embodied in a Petition against the Bill; but the Petition itself was not pressed. The objections had, however, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan, been brought before the House of Lords and duly considered; and, under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. From all that the Committee of the House of Commons were able to see of the Belfast Improvement Bill, they came to the conclusion that it would carry into effect some very desirable improvements of the town; and he should be very sorry to see it rejected upon the present occasion. He hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not persist with his Amendment,

  1065
  as if he did so, he was afraid that he could not give him his vote.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcould not take objection to the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan. He apprehended that his hon. Friend was perfectly within his right when he took upon himself to oppose the further progress of the Bill at this stage. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) thought that probably the object of the Bill was a very good one; but the grounds of objection taken by the hon. Member for Cavan were two-fold. The chief one, which his hon. Friend had placed upon the Paper, referred to the fact that the Corporation of Belfast had already been charged with an important public work, and had failed to carry it out. He thought that was a very fair topic to bring under the notice of the House, although it was by no means conclusive in the matter, and would probably not justify the House in going the extreme length of rejecting the present Bill. There was one matter, however, to which he thought the attention of the House ought to be specially directed. He held in his hand a document which had been circulated among hon. Members, which purported to be
  "A statement on behalf of the Corporation of Belfast in support of the Bill, and against the Motion of Mr. Biggar,"
  and which bore the name of Dyson and Co., Parliamentary Agents. In that document, the entire merits of the proposition of the hon. Member for Cavan were discussed and prejudged, and the writer endeavoured to furnish hon. Members of that House with the conclusions which they ought to arrive at, after deliberating upon the measure. The persons who circulated this document undertook to state what object the hon. Member for Cavan had in view. He apprehended that this was a most inconvenient course for any hon. Member in charge of a Bill like this to sanction. His hon. Friend the Member for Cavan had referred to this document; but it seemed to him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) that the document itself was highly disrespectful to the House and most irregular. Although there was a good deal of force in the objections which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in dividing
  1066
  the House upon the question; because, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the merits of the objections, his hon. Friend was scarcely likely to induce a majority of the House to agree with him in his Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be pressed to a division. The grounds of the Amendment, however, were well worthy of the attention and consideration of the promoters of the Bill. Feeling that the document to which he had referred was not consistent with the proper respect due to the House, he proposed to place it in proper hands as soon as the present discussion should have closed.
  MR. RAIKES: I think, Sir, it is hardly possible to imagine a more inconvenient course than that which has been taken by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in making this Motion. The Bill, which the hon. Member referred to at some length in his opening remarks, has now passed through almost every stage in both Houses. It has been fully considered by a Select Committee upstairs, the Chairman of which has stated that it met the entire approval of that Committee. It has been to the other House of Parliament, and there carefully considered. The hon. Member for Cavan was himself called as a witness before the Committee of the other House, and, in deference to the opposition offered to the Bill in that House, the House of Lords introduced certain Amendments into it in the shape of a new clause, which is to follow Clause 22 of the original Bill. That new clause requires the Corporation of Belfast, within 12 months after the purchase of the necessary property for any new street or improvement authorized by the Bill, to proceed with the execution thereof in accordance with the Bill, and to complete the same with reasonable despatch. That is the only Amendment in the Bill upon which any general objection can be raised. Well, Sir, I think it would hardly be possible for the Forms by which Parliament has endeavoured to protect the promoters of a Private Bill to be more strained than by a Motion such as that which is now submitted to the House; or for the interests of suitors to be more sacrificed, than in the event of such a Motion being adopted—theresult of which would be to reject a Bill which has already

  1067
  passed nearly all its stages in both Houses of Parliament on a simple Motion for rejecting the Lords Amendments. It is not necessary that I should go into the questions of detail which have been raised by the hon. Member for Cavan. He may object to the Bill because he thinks that the interest of certain Roman Catholic citizens of Belfast are not generally considered. That is a large and important question, and I wish to express no opinion upon it. He may object further to the Bill on the ground that the Corporation of Belfast have omitted to fulfil certain engagements which they had previously contracted. But these are neither of them questions for the House to consider now. The House has only to consider whether the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords, and which are of the simplest character, are objectionable, or whether they afford sufficient reason for setting aside a Bill which has already received the approval of Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and which I hope on the present occasion this House will sanction. I trust that the Amendment will be met by a decided negative.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  "After Clause 22, insert Clause 22A, the first Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member in charge of the Bill propose to agree to the Lords Amendments?
  MR. J. P. CORRY: Yes.
  MR. BIGGARasked leave to disagree with the Lords Amendment. The clause provided that the Corporation should, within 12 months after the purchase of property for a new street or improvement, proceed to complete and execute such new street or improvement with reasonable despatch. That clause was inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords in consequence of the opposition of his friend Mr. Ross. He proposed to make a small addition to the clause by adding the following Proviso:—
  "Provided also, That the said powers of purchase shall not come into operation till the main drainage scheme, which has been approved of by the Local Government Board, has been completed."
  1068
  He had no wish to detain the House at any further length; but he thought he could make out a strong case in favour of the Amendment. He had already pointed out that the Corporation of Belfast were under an engagement to the Local Government Board, in reference to the main drainage scheme. They had carried out part of the work already, and had spent part of the money; but the scheme was incomplete, and the Corporation might just as well have refrained from spending the money which they had already spent. What he urged was simply this—that the Corporation of Belfast should endeavour to carry out the work they had undertaken, and should then bring into operation the improvement parts of their present Bill. In the Bill the Corporation took 10 years for their compulsory powers of purchase. That was really a very long time, and he hoped the House would accept his Amendment, as it certainly could not have the effect of rendering the Bill inoperative. It was not intended as a means of throwing the Bill on one side; but it would have the effect of requiring the Town Council of Belfast, like sensible men, to complete one scheme of improvement before they commenced another. Under these circumstances, he begged to move that the words he had proposed be added to the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end thereof, to add the words "Provided also, That the said powers of purchase shall not come into operation till the main drainage scheme, which, has been approved of by the Local Government Board, has been completed."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. P. CORRYsaid, he was compelled to take the same course in regard to the present Amendment as that which he had already taken in regard to the previous one, which involved the rejection of the Bill altogether. In fact, so far as his own knowledge went, he was not aware that any main drainage scheme had been approved of by the Local Government Board at all, or that the Corporation of Belfast were under any pledge to the Local Government Board to carry out any scheme. There were, however, certain works going on, and those works would be completely stopped

  1069
  if this Bill were not passed. The adoption of the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Cavan would effectually stop all the improvements now going on in Belfast. He therefore hoped the House would not assent to it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 167: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Belfast propose to agree with the rest of the Lords' Amendments?
  MR. J. P. CORRY: Yes.
  Subsequent Amendments agreed, to.

QUESTIONS.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION'—THE CON VENTION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND TURKEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In the absence of my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention of the 4th June between the Governments of Great Britain and Turkey has yet been ratified; and, whether the said Convention has been communicated to the Congress at Berlin, or to the European Powers separately?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the English ratification of the Convention was sent to Constantinople by special messenger some time ago, and Sir Austen Layard reported on the 8th that everything was settled, and Mr. Baring, who was to take the firman to Cyprus, had left Constantinople. We have not yet received any official Report of the Convention having been formally communicated to the other Powers at Berlin.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman will observe that the Question I asked him was, whether the Convention has been communicated to the Congress at Berlin, or to the European Powers separately.
  MR. BOURKE: The answer is that which I have given, and which I believe to be a complete answer to the Question
  1070
  —namely, that we have not yet received any official Report of the Convention having been formally communicated to the other Powers, either at Berlin or elsewhere.

TURNPIKE ROADS RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state to the House the total cost of Turnpike Roads which have been disturnpiked since December 31st, 1870, and, which under the provisions of the Highways Bill, would become chargeable to the county rate; also the total cost of existing Turnpike Roads which, on ceasing to be such, might hereafter become chargeable under the provisions of the same Bill to the county rate?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the Returns of the annual cost of turnpike roads were given in the Appendices to the Local Government Reports. The cost in 1870 was £509,546; and, according to the latest Returns, the cost was £282,273, and half of the difference would primâ facie be the amount that would fall upon the county rate. The latest Returns were, however, 18 months in arrear, and it was estimated that the probable charge would now amount to about £150,000 a-year.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will be able to put the Amendments to be introduced into the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on the Table; and, whether he hopes to be able to circulate amongst hon. Members the Orders in Council before the Bill goes into Committee?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to place the Amendments on the Table that evening, and they would be printed and circulated immediately. With regard to the other part of the Question, he had communicated with the Privy Council on the subject, and the Orders would be laid on the Table as soon as possible; but he was unable to say if it would be before the Bill went again into Committee.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked, what would be the order of Business on Friday next?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was not easy to say what would be the particular Business on Friday. It would depend very much on what progress they made that day (Tuesday). He thought the Army and War Office Regulation Bill would be on the Paper for that day.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Inclosure Bill was down first for Friday. He wished to know if it would keep its place?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Inclosure Bill would in all probability be taken first on Friday. It would keep its place on the Paper that day; but should any change take place, he would communicate it to the House before Friday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 224.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, it was a matter of great regret to him that Glasgow had been obliged to be so prominent in the discussion of the Roads and Bridges Bill; for he was sure that the House would be quite sick of the name of Glasgow and its grievances by this time. But Glasgow was peculiarly situated, and he was speaking under a stinging sense of the flagrant injustice imposed uponher—injustice of an almost unparalleled character. By an hard-and-fast clause in the Bill, it was proposed to inflict upon her an annual burden of £10,000 a-year for the maintenance of the county roads, and also to make her pay, on an equal rate with the counties,
  1072
  the whole of the county road debts. The injustice of the Government in this matter was not only that the clause was inconsistent with every other clause in the Bill, but that it was utterly inconsistent with the conduct of the Government in other matters; for on Friday they had the President of the Local Government Board proposing an Amendment on the English Highways Bill by which the Metropolis was specially exempted from paying any part of the county road debt.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, his proposal had nothing to do with the debts of the turnpike roads.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had made a mistake, having meant to say county road maintenance. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely excluded the Metropolis from payments to the county road maintenance, and had also excluded all quarter sessions boroughs from the same burdens; and yet, a few days before that, they had the Home Secretary proposing, under the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, that Glasgow should make large payments, both towards the debts and maintenance of the county roads. He maintained that these were inconsistencies which would not win the confidence of the country to the Government. When it saw the Government blowing hot and cold, doing one thing for the boroughs of England and an entirely different thing for a burgh in Scotland, the fact was not likely to create much confidence in such a Government. They had the Local Government Board and the Home Office distinctly at variance with each other in this matter. A very small concession at the eleventh hour was made; but he wished to make a distinct protest against the expression of the Home Secretary, that the concession was of the nature of a compromise. It was not a compromise at all, because Glasgow repudiated it. A compromise was an agreement between two parties; but in this case one of the parties had nothing to do with it. All that it enabled Glasgow to do was to come back in five years and renew the battle, sickening the House of Commons of that day as they were doing now; and in the meantime they would have paid the great bulk of the county road debt, and £50,000 for the maintenance of the county roads, no part of which was it ever proposed

  1073
  they should get back, even if the revision at the end of the five years was entirely in Glasgow's favour. This injustice of making Glasgow pay the county road debts was immensely aggravated by the nature of the valuations. In Glasgow every working man's house and every other residence and every shop was valued at the full amount, and must, therefore, pay towards the county road debt on the utmost valuation. But in the counties there was a totally different state of matters existing. They had there all the county magnates living in palatial residences, and they had these rated at the lowest possible figure—at mere nominal rents—and not at all in proportion to the magnitude of the property. Thus, while the county magnate paid the lowest possible amount, the Glasgow workman would pay to the utmost farthing. He maintained that before this flagrant injustice was done, Glasgow had a right to be heard by counsel. This right had been denied by a British House of Commons; led on by a despotic Government, with a large majority at its back. He protested against this. He believed the injustice to be utterly unprecedented, and that the case he had made out the other day for being heard by counsel was entirely uncontrovorted. It had hardly been denied—indeed, it appeared to have been admitted—that if the Home Secretary had been spoken to sooner he would have allowed it to be so heard. The right hon. Gentleman had not denied the hardship. He (Mr. Anderson) was bound to say that the learned gentleman who acted as the Speaker's counsel, and advised him in this matter, must have been very hard up for precedents when, after several days' search, the only one he was able to give dated some 34 years back—namely, the South Wales Highways Act. He (Mr. Anderson) had since examined it, and found it was not a precedent in any sense of the word. What Glasgow complained of, he repeated, was that by a hard-and-fast clause in the Bill this extraordinary liability for the county roads was placed upon it. In the South Wales Highway Act there was nothing whatever of the kind. All that it did was to appoint Commissioners for the adjustment of the county road debts, and to arrange a system of arbitration under which those who made objections
  1074
  could be heard. There was no such thing as a hard-and-fast line deciding that Brecknock, say, was to pay the debt of Radnor, or that Pembroke was to pay £10,000 a-year to support the roads of Cardigan. Therefore, he maintained that there was nothing in that Act which served as a precedent to justify the House in having refused that Glasgow should be heard by counsel before this injustice was inflicted upon it. The only excuse for this act of the Government was that Glasgow came too late with its objections. The Home Secretary had said the City of Glasgow had been guilty of certain laches in not having come at an earlier date and let him know the circumstances. His constituents entirely and distinctly denied these laches. On the 15th of February they saw the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate together, and at that interview the proposals of Mr. Smith were laid before them and strongly protested against. That was not all. On the 1st of March they had another interview with the Lord Advocate, on the 20th of March a second, on the 27th of May a third, and on the 3rd of June a fourth interview with the Lord Advocate, besides sending, both to him and the Home Secretary, printed papers and written remonstrances. There were no fewer than four distinct interviews with the Lord Advocate, at every one of which the strongest remonstrances were made against these proposals; and yet they had the Home Secretary coming and telling the House that he never heard from the Glasgow magistrates since the 15th of February. How was Glasgow to know that the Lord Advocate was never communicating these remonstrances to the Home Secretary, or that the Home Secretary entirely forgot or ignored them? The magistrates of Glasgow had always understood, as had other Scotch corporations, that the Lord Advocate was the proper means of communicating between them and the Government. They knew no other. They had been accustomed to go to the Lord Advocate with other grievances. They went four times to the Lord Advocate, remonstrating with him upon this injustice, and yet they were told by the Home Secretary that he never heard a word about it. The fault lay either with the Lord Advocate or with the Home Secretary—in any case, with

  1075
  the Government, certainly not with the magistrates of Glasgow. The Home Secretary also complained that the actual Motion to be heard by counsel came very late—only after the clause was in the Bill. If the magistrates of Glasgow had believed it possible that the House of Commons would pass that unjust clause, and incorporate it with the Bill, the Amendment demanding to be heard by counsel would have been made even sooner; but it was made as soon as the clause was fairly in the Bill. He did not believe it would be any use at this late period to divide the House upon this matter. The Representatives of Glasgow had made the best fight they could; but with the large majority the Government had at its back, the fight was a vain one. The question would, however, be fought "elsewhere," and by much abler men. He trusted that in the "other place" the fight would have a more satisfactory issue. If that happened, it would not be the first time that an injustice inadvertently inflicted upon Glasgow by this House was redressed by the other. He said inadvertently, because he was quite sure the House of Commons would not willingly inflict injustice on anyone. If it came to be fought in the other House, he would have the Government consider whether it would not be better to allow the clause to be thrown out, with the result of leaving the Bill a perfectly good Road Act for Scotland, consistent with itself in all its parts. No one would be really aggrieved if this were done. The only effect would be that the counties in question would have to ask for a Provisional Order in regard to anything they did not like. There was abundant time between this and the Act coming into operation to have the different claims of the counties and of the City of Glasgow adjusted, after proper evidence, where the parties could be heard by counsel in the presence of each other. He urged the Government to remove this grievous blot upon the Bill. He was sure it would not be satisfactory to the Government to feel that this clause, introduced at the last hour, was to produce such an amount of hostility as it would create in Glasgow. It would only produce contempt for the law and resistance to the law; for the feeling in Glasgow was so bitter against the counties and the rate proposed, that he looked forward to an amount of bad
  1076
  feeling being created, to an extent which the Government might find it a very inconvenient thing to deal with. He asked them, therefore, at the last moment to allow this clause to be thrown out, and to leave parties to adjust their differences in future by a Provisional Order or Private Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he thought the Lord Advocate ought to take some notice of what had been stated. The fact was that the Home Secretary was anxious to be here, but was unavoidably called away. He was certain if the right hon. Gentleman had been there, he would not allow the injustice his hon. Colleague (Mr. Anderson) protested against to pass without a word of explanation; and he really thought, in his absence, the Lord Advocate was bound to make some explanation, not in reference to the entire question, but in reference to a matter which had been for the first time brought before the House—the accusation of laches brought against Glasgow in this matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought a great deal of meaning had been attached to the word laches which was not intended to be conveyed by it. He took it that all the Home Secretary intended was that the suggestion of Glasgow came too late. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to say that he was not aware of the position taken up by the City. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had been made aware of it by the hon. Members for Glasgow whilst the Bill was in progress and in Committee. What he meant was that the Motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee could not be fairly considered at a period of the Session when the proposal would have the effect of shelving the Bill, and that the suggestion should have been made at an earlier period than when the Bill was passing through the Committee of the House.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEalso thought the term laches entirely had reference to the proposal to send a Bill to a Select Committee, which was an unprecedented proposition on the last stage of the Bill. It ought, if made at all, to have been earlier. There was a strong feeling that if the Government had taken a course of that kind it would have had the effect of throwing out the Bill. He did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in his remarks. Had the whole burden fallen on them, the counties would have have had to be taxed at 1s. and 1s. 6d. in the pound for roads most extensively used by Glasgow. It was only just that Glasgow and the suburban burghs should afford the counties some assistance in this matter, as without seeking to eclipse the hon. Member for Glasgow in the use of strong language, he must say that, had the Bill passed without some provision of the kind which had been introduced by the Lord Advocate, it would have been one of the most iniquitous Bills that ever was carried.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Lord Advocate had ignored the statement with reference to the four separate interviews between the magistrates of Glasgow and his Lordship. It was perhaps as well that the people of Glasgow should take note of the fact that though they might hold interviews with the Lord Advocate, it was possible that information of them might never reach the Home Secretary, and that while they were accustomed to look to the Lord Advocate, it was useless to send deputations to him; because it might turn out after all that the Home Secretary would get up in this House and say that the representations had never reached him. He thought this was a matter which the Lord Advocate should explain more clearly than he had done in the very perfunctory statement he had made to the House. As the clause was introduced in Committee, it was impossible that its opponents could have proposed a Select Committee earlier than they did.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)

  [BILL 214.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Bye-laws by County Authority.
  Clause 20 (Power of county authority to make bye-laws).
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON SIR GEORGE JENKINSON moved, in page 9, line 9, after "highways" to add the words—
  "(5.) For regulating the felling of any hedgerow, timber, or trees upon or across any highway to the danger of the public using such highway."
  He said that cases had come under his own knowledge of accidents being caused by trees laying across the highways.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that the other day it had been shown that it was perfectly unnecessary to lay down any of those regulations. For his own part, he was not aware of any case of the kind in which danger to the public had arisen, and he thought that if they had to provide by bye-laws against every possible accident that might occur, they would have enough to do. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was better advised when he did not press any such regulations as these. The matter might safely be left to the Common Law, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen would join with him in opposing the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he knew of a case in which a tree had been lying immediately in front of an approaching vehicle, which had run into it before the driver had time to stop. In some cases, the occupants of a vehicle had the option of being despatched by a tree or drowned in a pond. Such a case had occurred within a few yards from his own house.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose to oppose the whole of the propositions of the hon. Baronet. It might happen that the bye-laws might be passed in one county and not in another, so that a man going from one county to another would not know under what bye-laws he existed. He was under the impression that the system of making different bye-laws for different

  1079
  localities had been carried to an extreme, and that they really must allow some matters to be determined by the common sense and judgment of people who were engaged in the management of districts. With regard to the evil of trees, he could not say that he had passed over as many country roads as the hon. Baronet; but, in his whole experience, he had never met with the slightest inconvenience in the way indicated.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the hon. Baronet ought to get some credit for his attempt to make things a little better than they were. He could speak from experience in the matter, seeing as he did from time to time similar cases occurring down in Hertfordshire. He did not know whether the Common Law would prevent it or not, but they did want some better regulations than they already had in reference to their roads. They also wanted some authority to clean out ditches by the side of roads.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that a discussion on this point was beyond the limit afforded by the Amendment.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that he wanted to support the hon. Baronet, because he had seen frequent cases of accident occurring from people not noticing trees that were lying across roads.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Baronet would not press the words he had proposed, or any of the Amendments he had to follow them. He should be very willing to establish a general power of making bye-laws similar to that which existed under the General Turnpike Act. The trustees under those Acts had the power of preventing certain nuisances upon roads, such as the opening of gates outwards into roads; and he thought that under some general words they might give such powers as would make it certain that all that was reasonable would be provided for. If the hon. Member would favour him by withdrawing his Amendment, and the other Gentlemen who had similar Amendments would do the same, he would substitute such an Amendment as the following:—
  "For prohibiting or regulating all or any of such matters or things as may be prohibited or regulated under the General Turnpike Act."
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he hoped the power included the lopping and
  1080
  trimming of timber which overhung roads which in some districts rendered them almost impassable for loads of hay and straw. But with regard to bicycles, they were almost a new machine, and if the hon. Baronet moved his Amendment affecting them he should be ready to support him, because he thought that without some regulation they were really a danger and a nuisance.
  MR.GOLDNEYasked, whether power would be included to control the dragging of threshing machines along the roads?
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, the object of his Amendment was to give powers to the highway authorities which the turnpike trustees did not possess at the present time.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he should be very glad to leave the whole subject in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and if he would deal with all the matters contained in the following Amendments he would withdraw those also.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not conscientiously say that his Amendment would include the management of bicycles; but if the hon. Baronet desired to deal with them now was the time to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONthen moved the insertion of the following words:—
  "(6.) For prohibiting the use of any bicycle on any highway, unless the rider of such bicycle shall be provided with, and shall use, a loud bell and whistle, as well as a clear light after dark, or other effectual means of giving at all times audible notice of his approach on meeting or passing any vehicle or any person on horseback."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHagreed to accept the first part of the Amendment in the following form:—"For regulating the use of any bicycle on any road."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had received a communication from the bicyclists of London, which led him to think that they would be perfectly content with the Amendment as altered. They had no objection to the prohibition of bicycling on footpaths, but they certainly objected very strongly to being compelled to use whistles.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in the same clause, page 9, line 9, to insert, after the words already inserted, the words—
  "And for prohibiting or regulating all, or any, of such things as may be prohibited or regulated, respectively, under the provisions of the General Turnpike Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON moved, in the same clause, to insert the words, after those inserted already—
  "(9.) For prohibiting the driving or riding furiously, or racing, against time or otherwise, in or upon any vehicle, including bicycles, so as to endanger the lives and limbs of passengers riding on the highway.''
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the present Highways Acts would meet the case suggested by the Amendment of his hon. Friend; and if they did not, he would undertake, if possible, to amend them.
  MR. PEASEsuggested that the Amendment should end with the word "otherwise," leaving out the words "in or upon any vehicle," as those words narrowed the operation of the clause to those in or upon a carriage, and prevented horsemen being dealt with.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that any provision in the general Highways Acts would be applicable to roads which had been disturnpiked.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORYproposed, in page 9, line 9, to insert the words—
  "(5.) For prohibiting or regulating the use of locomotives upon any highway, or across any bridge, where such authority is satisfied that such use would be attended with danger to the public from the narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction of such highway or bridge respectively."
  The Amendment, he thought, spoke for itself. It must be in the knowledge of many hon. Members that there were in country districts many roads along which locomotives ought only to be allowed to pass on stringent conditions, and many bridges over which they ought not to be allowed to pass at all. He saw no reason why the local authorities might not be fairly intrusted with a power of this kind.
  MR. KNIGHTobjected to the proposal, on the ground that it would enable
  1082
  local authorities to prevent the use of steam ploughs all over England, because they would not have permission to travel over the roads. He had known cases in which, under the existing law, farmers who wished to use steam power in the cultivation of their land had been unable to do so. It was, in his opinion, unjust to regard as being engaged in "regular traffic," a steam engine which was simply used for the purpose of working a steam plough or a threshing-machine, and had only to be moved from farm to farm as its services were required. It would be easy to put in the Bill provisions which would insure payment, by the persons causing it, for damage done to roads or culverts by the passing of locomotive engines over public roads; but he thought it would be a monstrous abuse of the powers of Parliament, to make a law which could possibly have the effect of preventing the use of steam power in agriculture.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, it seemed to him absurd to give to any local authority power to stop the passage over roads, and so to prohibit the use, of any machines which were of great practical use in the conduct of farming operations. As far as he understood the proposals of the Government, they would, in a later clause, include such Amendments as would meet any reason able demand on the part of those who objected to the use of steam engines on public roads.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he thought it would be wise to make a distinction between locomotives which were proposed to be run frequently and regularly along public roads, and those which were only to be employed on the roads occasionally, in going from farm to farm, in connection with the operations of ploughing or threshing. The objection to locomotives, on the score that it would not be easy to pass them in certain circumstances, would apply with equal weight to a brewer's dray or a furniture van. If two of these vehicles met in a road too narrow for them to pass, one would have to back, and the same observation applied to locomotives. He perfectly agreed that there should be applied to bridges a special protective provision; because, at present, there was no law to prevent engines of any kind passing over bridges, and there was no law to compel persons damaging bridges to pay for

  1083
  such damage, unless they actually broke down the bridge.
  MR. W. S. STANHOPEthought some distinction should be made between locomotives which were intended to be constantly employed on public roads, and those which it was proposed to move about from farm to farm for agricultural purposes. He knew some roads off which the public were practically driven, by the fact that they were regularly traversed by locomotives. Although a road might be sufficiently wide for a vehicle to pass a locomotive, it could not be done; because the locomotive, owing to its weight, could only travel in the centre of a roadway.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he thought no one would object to the use of locomotives on turnpike roads in connection with the operations of agriculture; but he thought there could be some difference of opinion on the subject of allowing their use for ordinary roads, involving, as it would, the possible destruction of many bridges and the certain injury of a large number of roads and the culverts which ran beneath them, unless the roads had been previously made ready for such extra weight, a thing that ought to be attended to.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to deal with this question on Clause 24, than to attempt to deal with it here.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the clause now proposed referred to the bye-laws to be made by county authorities; and when they were regulating bye-laws, it seemed to him that this Amendment should be inserted. As, however, his right hon. Friend wished to have the alteration made somewhere else, he had no objection. With respect to bridges, the proprietors of locomotives were already liable by the Locomotive Acts, for the repair of any bridges they broke down; but the Acts at present did not stop them from going over weak bridges. As a result, if a bridge was too weak it broke, and parties using the road were for months unable to go that way because the bridge was under repair. The proprietors of the locomotives might be finally liable; but he wanted to prevent them from straining the bridge in the first instance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

PART II.

  AMENDMENT OF LOCOMOTIVES ACTS, 1861 AND 1865.
  Clause 21 (Weight of locomotives and contruction of wheels).
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, not on the Paper, of which he had given his right hon. Friend private Notice. He proposed, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the words "shall not be lawful to," and insert the words "be lawful for any highway authority to." His object was to give power to the local authorities to make these regulations optional if they chose—that was to say, to adopt them or not. Subject to the damage for excessive weight, he believed the right policy was to remove all these restrictions, and he wished to empower any and every county to be able to do so. Hon. Members generally had, he believed, no desire to prohibit or to unduly restrict the use of locomotives, but rather to encourage it, subject to public damage and public danger, and nuisance. It seemed to him that if they limited the width of wheel and the weight of the locomotive, they put a bar in the way of improvements, which might do far more harm than would now be done by leaving the use of locomotives free from any of these restrictions, except damage and danger. The principle laid down by Sir George Grey, in the first of these Locomotive Acts, was that the use of these engines should not be encumbered by too many restrictions. That principle had always been adhered to by the House in subsequent legislation; and he thought they might safely give power to the local authorities to dispense with these restrictions in the district under their jurisdiction, if they chose.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this part of the Bill was intended as an Amendment of the general law with respect to locomotives. It was not intended that the different county authorities should have power to make different regulations, for it would be intolerable that a locomotive could not pass from one county, or, perhaps, even from one parish to another, without being subject to different and varying rules and penalties. In his opinion, this was not a fit subject for regulation by the local authorities. The general Locomotive

  1085
  Acts of 1861 and 1865 regulated the use of these engines, and it was now proposed to improve those Acts in certain respects which experience had shown to be necessary. For the last two years he had been in communication, off and on, with gentlemen who were interested in the manufacture and use of locomotives, and the provisions and alterations now made had been carefully settled, with the view of making such reasonable amendment of the law as was thought necessary. On the other hand, these gentlemen had cheerfully submitted to certain restrictions to which by law they were not now subject. He thought these proposals were now very just and fair, and if they were to attempt to vary them they might do more harm than they were aware of.
  COLONEL BEAUMONTsaid, this Amendment would introduce optional legislation, and its inconvenience would be apparent to the hon. Baronet if he would remember the number of different bodies these locomotive people would have to deal with. They could not have legislation that was at once optional and final; while if these regulations were left to the local authorities to settle, there would be an interminable number of difficulties introduced. The final appeal ought, in his opinion, to rest with the Board of Trade; and besides, they should have certain broad rules laid down and insisted upon, as was done in this clause. In proportion, also, as they enforced stringent legislation, they took the responsibility from the shoulders of the owners of the engines, and, in his opinion, that was undesirable.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON moved, in page 9, line 25, to leave out "three," and insert the word "six." He did not understand how three inches could be sufficient width of tire in every case.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the first of these sections applied to locomotives not drawing carriages, and he thought three inches was enough in that case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL CHAPLIN COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in page 9, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "two inches," and insert "one-and-a-half inch." He quite agreed with the principle of having the width of the wheel
  1086
  regulated by the weight of the locomotive; but he thought the experience of the last 10 or 15 years had shown that 2 inches was too much, and that 1½ inch would be enough. There were numbers of engines in use in this country with wheels of that width, and it had been found quite sufficient.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not aware that there was any complaint as to the limit of 2 inches; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he would inquire into the matter, and make a change in the clause on the Report, if he were satisfied it was necessary.
  COLONEL BEAUMONTsaid, the width of the wheel was really a very important matter; for a very narrow wheel cut up the road a great deal, while a wide one became a road roller, and if they only chose to widen it sufficiently, the passage of the locomotive really became a benefit. He had considered the matter a good deal, and had made some inquiries. As a result, he was bound to say that he thought 1½ inch narrower than was necessary, while 2 inches was too wide. He should think 1¾ inch would be best.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in line 30, after the words "not less than two inches in depth," to add "and sixty inches in diameter." At the end of the sub-section he should propose, subsequently, to add some words, enacting that if the diameter of the wheel was increased a corresponding decrease in the width of the tire should be allowed. He believed this Amendment would be satisfactory to locomotive manufacturers, and he had no reason to doubt that it was a reasonable one.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, if the weight of the locomotive was three tons, was the diameter of the wheel to be three times 60 inches?
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, the wording of this last Amendment would have to be altered, for, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would read as if the tires were to be not less than 60 inches in diameter; whereas, of course, the wheels were meant.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this Amendment was given to him in manuscript, and though he did not doubt the correctness of the source from which it

  1087
  came, he would prefer to withdraw it now, and let it stand over till the Report.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the principle of the Amendment was certainly a good one—that the width of the wheel should be regulated by the diameter of the wheel. Of course, with a very large wheel the weight was distributed over a greater space; and, therefore, there was less pressure upon the road than with a smaller wheel.
  Amendment agreed to.
  COLONEL CHAPLIN COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in line 34, after the word "The," to insert the word "driving." The driving wheel was the one on which the great weight fell, and the steering wheels were by no means so important. If this were accepted, these latter wheels would not cut up the road so much.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEVERNE MR. SEVERNE moved, in page 9, lines 34 and 35, to leave out all the words after the word "smooth-rolled," to the end of the clause. He was sure the cross-bars on the wheels did great harm to the roads, disintegrating the surface, and breaking it up. Very often the cross-bars extended the full width, or nearly the full width, of the wheel, and they cut into the road to their full depth of ¾ of an inch. Formerly, there was a wide edge to the wheel left smooth; but that was now done away with to a great extent, and, consequently, a great deal more damage was done to the roads than formerly.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid it was quite impossible to accept this Amendment. It would upset the whole of the clause. If such a restriction were agreed to, it would prevent the use of locomotives altogether.
  MR. WHITWELLentirely agreed with the hon. Baronet. He had often seen traction-engines run up steep hills, which they would never have been able to mount but for the cross-bars.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would not be reasonable to put in such a restriction as this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL CHAPLIN COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in line 35, after the word "inch" to insert the word "diagonal." If the cross-bars were diagonal, instead of being at right
  1088
  angles to the tire as hitherto, they would not cut up the road nearly so much.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved, in line 37, after the word "thickness," to insert the words "extend to the full breadth of the tire." At present, part of the wheel was sometimes left smooth, and, as a consequence, the cross-bars cut in much more than they would have done if they had extended the whole breadth of the wheel.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he had placed on the Paper two subsections, the first of which was intended to secure that the weight of a locomotive should be legibly written upon it. The second gave power to a local authority to construct a weighing machine at some convenient point for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of locomotives. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham (Colonel Beaumont), who took an interest in this matter, might not see any reason to object to this proposal, and that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board might see his way to adopting it. He begged to move, in page 9, line 38, after sub-section (4), to insert—
  "(5.) The exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals, shall be legibly written in letters of not less than one inch in length, and affixed to some conspicuous part of the locomotive. (6.) For the purpose of ascertaining the true weight of a locomotive, any highway district or highway parish authority may, with, the consent of the county authority, construct and erect a weighing machine, with necessary approaches, in any convenient place on the road-side; and every locomotive passing along such road shall, once every six months, if required by the surveyor, go upon the said weighing machine, with coal and water supply complete, and be weighed thereon in the presence of the surveyor, whose certificate shall be true and sufficient evidence of such weight."
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that while he did not object to the principle involved in the Amendment, he thought it would be imposing a very unnecessary expense upon parochial authorities to require that a weighing machine should be erected in every district throughout the country. He would point out that there was scarcely any place in England where there was not a weighing machine within a convenient distance. Every railway, for example was provided with one.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONexplained, that what he proposed was not a compulsory, but a permissive power to erect a weighing machine with the consent of the county authority.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he was quite aware of that fact. Yet, surely, it was indicating that it was more or less the duty of every district where a locomotive was used to have one of these weighing machines?
  MR. KNIGHTobjected to the Amendment, that it would entail an addition to the rates. Everything was to be put upon the rates. It would seem that no Act of Parliament could be brought in without something more being put upon the rates. The Amendment would place an obligation almost on the County Boards to erect weighing machines, though there was one to be found at every railway station. He hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. WHITWELLthought the hon. Baronet hardly contemplated what he proposed to enact. It was, that every highway authority might at some point of a road within their district erect a weighing machine, and that the locomotive should be weighed at that place. But the locomotive might not pass along that road at all. The Amendment said that it was only when passing the weighing machine, that the locomotive should be weighed.
  COLONEL BEAUMONTpointed out that the local authorities had already power to cause any traction engine to be weighed. The fact was, however, that it was generally known perfectly well what an engine did weigh, and what amount of coal was required for the purpose of working it, and though he did not think much harm would arise from the passing of the Amendment, he believed it to be unnecessary.
  MR. BEAUMONTsaid, he rather agreed that sub-section 6 appeared to impose an obligation upon the local authorities, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Baronet to withdraw that portion of his Amendment.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the last suggestion was a very good one. To the first part of the Amendment there was no objection; but as regarded the second part, while it might do harm it could not possibly do any good, and there was no use, therefore, in overburdening the Bill with clauses which
  1090
  would serve no good purpose. There were many ways by which the weight of an engine might be easily ascertained, and he would, therefore, join in the appeal made to the hon. Baronet to omit the latter part of his Amendment.
  MR. W. STANHOPEremarked, that if the latter sub-section were withdrawn, he still thought that power should be given to local authorities to erect weighing machines where they thought it necessary for the general purposes of the Act.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas aware that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) held that view, and he did not pretend to say that it was an unreasonable one to hold. Perhaps, on the Report, some words might be inserted to enable a local authority to erect a weighing machine if they thought it necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) would be prepared to withdraw the second part of his Amendment.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON: I accede to that request.
  Sub-section 6 withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That sub-section 5 be inserted."
  MR. KNIGHTremarked, that at the present time steam ploughs were in use all over the country, and he should like to know what the owners of them were to do, if this Amendment were agreed to? Were they to wait upon or write to the persons who made them in order to ascertain the exact weight of the engine? It was generally known whether an engine was a 10-ton or a 15-ton engine; but the requirement as to the exact weight would, it seemed to him, give rise to great difficulty and a very troublesome operation. In fact, nobody would be able to use his engine at all. How on earth was one to ascertain the exact weight of locomotives?
  MR. CLARE READpointed out that the engines sent out with steam ploughs invariably had the weight written upon them. All the engines in his district were so marked. There was no hardship in the matter.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDagreed that there was no hardship whatever in regard to the question of weight. He believed that the owners of locomotives were perfectly willing to agree to what

  1091
  was proposed, and it was not worth the while of the Committee to discuss it.
  MR. MARLINGsuggested that the words "exact and true" should be omitted. It would be quite sufficient to say weight.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That Amendment cannot now be made.
  MR. SCLATER- BOOTHsaid, he would take care that these words were struck out on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the object of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was to give some further notice of the approach of locomotives at night than that already provided for. He also thought that some light should be carried at the rear of the locomotive. He begged, therefore, to move, after line 38, to insert—
  "(4.) In addition to the lights already required, a locomotive shall at night carry a red light in front, and also a light at the rear or end of the same."
  MR. HERMON MR. HERMON moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by striking out the words "at night," in order to insert "after dusk and in foggy weather."
  COLONEL BEAUMONThoped that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. If they did, the locomotives, as far as he could see, would have a very bad time of it. If, in addition to the glare from the fires, locomotives had to carry a red light in front, which everybody knew was the signal of danger, and a red light behind, they would become such formidable objects that they might be driven off the road altogether. He was perfectly certain that a provision such as that proposed would have the effect of creating a danger which did not exist at present.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDremarked, that there was another objection to the Amendment. Already, under the Locomotives Act, every engine had to carry two lights in front. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) now proposed to stick another light in front, and a light behind. Admitting that it might be desirable to have a light behind, still the Amendment, in its present shape, could not be accepted, because, as he had stated, the two lights in front already provided for by Act of Parliament were quite sufficient. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, would not agree to the
  1092
  Amendment in the form in which it was proposed.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, there was a further objection to what was now proposed. It was already provided that a man must walk before every locomotive. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon; in the day, a man carrying a red flag, had to walk in front of every locomotive. It might be necessary to have a light behind; he thought, himself, such a light would be very useful; but all other lights were already sufficiently provided for. He had never seen any engine—and he had seen a great many of them—which was not provided with lights.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmust say that, personally, he would have a great objection to a red light being carried in front. He thought a light behind would be a reasonable requirement; but they need hardly insert a provision to that effect in this Bill.
  Amendments negatived.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. CLARE READsaid, his right hon. Friend had stated that he had been in communication with the proprietors of these locomotives. Might he ask him whether they had complained to him of the hardship which they now endured by being made to consume their own smoke, because that was really a very serious impediment to the use of steam on roads? There was no locomotive engine made which could consume its own smoke.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH MR. SCLATER-BOOTH rose to Order. If his hon. Friend would wait till the Committee came to Clause 23, he would find that that question arose, and he might then be able to give him a satisfactory answer.
  MR. PELLsaid, he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. They had now got an Amendment inserted in this clause which required that "the exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals," should be written on the engine. The first sub-section of the clause stated that—
  "a locomotive not drawing any carriage, and not exceeding in weight three tons, shall have the tires of the wheels thereof not less than three inches in width, with an additional inch for every ton, or fraction of a ton, above the first three tons,"

  1093
  Was that meant to include the water, or coals, or both? It was a point that should be made quite clear.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that he had promised to strike out the words "exact and true" on the Report, and to see that the Amendment that had been inserted would otherwise square with the other provisions of the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Amendment of Section 3 of Locomotive Act, 1865).
  COLONEL BEAUMONT COLONEL BEAUMONT moved, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "the paragraph numbered," and insert "the paragraphs numbered firstly and." He explained that the law, as it stood at present, provided that three men should be attached to every locomotive while in motion. Two of these were the engine-driver and stoker, and the third was the celebrated man who with the red flag walked in front, and whose duty appeared to be to frighten the horses first and render assistance afterwards. He was not by any means disposed or anxious to do anything which should interfere with the safety of the public on the roads; but, on the other hand, he was extremely anxious that no unnecessary cost should be thrown on the people who employed these road locomotives. Now, the Bill, which he certainly thought dealt on the whole both liberally and wisely with the question of locomotive power on roads, provided that the red flag should be done away with. The difference really was that whereas before the third man carried his red flag in front of the train, now the flag was dispensed with and he walked by the side. Under certain circumstances, he could quite understand that a third man was necessary; but in five cases out of six, especially in cases where locomotives were employed on country roads, where they were perfectly well known on the road from their travelling backwards and forwards, and where the people by the roadside hardly took the trouble to look as the engine went by, it certainly was little more than a solemn farce that a man should be employed to walk by the side of that engine. In all probability, he would be riding either on the engine or on one of the cars. He admitted that there were cases where it was extremely desirable that a third man
  1094
  should accompany the train; and he intended, if this Amendment were agreed to, to propose another whereby the local authorities could, when they saw fit, order a third man to be in attendance. He really did not see why the Amendment should not be accepted by the Committee. He did not believe that either the safety or the convenience of the public would be in any way endangered by its acceptance.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was about to appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), who had an Amendment of a somewhat similar nature on the Paper, to withdraw both their Amendments, and be content with the Bill as it stood. They were all agreed as to getting rid of the red flag, which did more harm than good; and what he proposed was that the original requirement of three persons to each locomotive should continue, and that one of them should render assistance to carriages passing the same. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Beaumont) wanted to reduce the number to two, which would not be an unreasonable thing if he had proposed some provision to meet exceptional circumstances; but it was almost impossible to say when a third or fourth man would be required. There was no local authority for the purposes of the Act except the county authority, who could not be expected to provide for these cases. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) wanted to add to the number of the persons accompanying a locomotive, and to have four persons, instead of three. He would put it to the hon. Gentlemen whether they ought not to withdraw their respective Amendments, and allow the clause to remain as it stood—namely, that there should be three persons with each locomotive, one of whom should, if need be, assist passing carriages?
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the object which he had in view would be entirely met by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham. All he desired was, that it should be the duty of some person to look out for carriages approaching, so as to give notice to the driver of a locomotive that they were desirous of passing.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The words in the clause are "shall in case of need assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing the same."
  SIR. JULIAN GOLDSMIDagreed that it was desirable that there should be some person to assist carriages passing, and the words of the clause entirely met that view.
  COLONEL BEAUMONTwished to explain how he proposed to deal with the matter. Where assistance was required the engine would be stopped, and there being two men upon it, one would be at liberty to jump off and render any assistance which might be requisite. His contention was, that the third man was simply useless.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in line 41, to leave out "Commissioners of Sewers," and to insert "Mayor, aldermen, and commoners."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved the omission of the clause. At present, the law provided that a man should go 60 yards in front of an engine, and give warning to approaching carriages. It was now proposed to dispense with such warning, the result of which might be that a carriage might come immediately upon the engine itself, and even at the turning out of a narrow road be brought face to face with it. He ventured to think, that unless some such notice as was now provided for was given to parties approaching these engines, most serious accidents would arise. Therefore, it would be most unfair to deprive the public of that protection which they at present possessed. As far as he knew there was no ground for it, except that it might result in some saving of expense to the proprietors of these locomotives; but in a case in which the public safety was concerned, he did not think that such a consideration should weigh with the Committee.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEcould not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex in this matter. He thought that a third man stationed so far ahead of an engine was more likely to create panic than to afford protection. He was of
  1096
  opinion that it was far better to have the thing remain as at present, the third man looking out and giving assistance when an emergency really arose.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKconsidered the third man a most useful attendant, in his part of the country at all events, where some portions of the road were so formed that, with these locomotives in the way, it was physically impossible for carriages and horses to pass along, unless this third man went on some distance before the engine and gave the necessary warning. There was not so much difficulty, of course, where the road was wide, and there was plenty of room to pass.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) was under a misapprehension. The third man was not to be dispensed with; he was only to be differently employed. His duty, at present, was to go on some distance in front of the locomotive and display a red flag—or, in other words, to frighten every horse that came near him. In future, his duty would be to go close to the engine, and be ready to assist passing carriages and horses. That arrangement was much more sensible than the existing one.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it seemed to him that the advocates of this clause were treating the Committee as one would frighten a disagreeable bull, with a piece of red rag. But after all, the red rag was not an essential part of the question—which was, whether the man should go ahead of the engine, or walk beside it? Looking at the matter from that point of view, and leaving out of consideration the question of "flag or no flag," he certainly thought it a far more sensible expedient that the man should be ahead, in order to prevent a carriage from getting into a hobble, than that he should wait until the carriage got into a hobble, and then try to extricate it. In a crooked, and especially a narrow lane, a carriage might come suddenly upon one of these engines, and what would happen? The horse would begin to plunge, and, if so, the man should be there to hold its head, and carry out the negotiation between the two vehicles, and cause the engine to stop, before any accident occurred. But, if he remained at the side of the locomotive, he would be a little too late to stop the impending disaster. For his part,

  1097
  he advised that the clause should be withdrawn till the Report, and then the Government, who had dealt with more difficult questions before, might turn their attention to this question of "flag or no flag;" but, at least, let them have their protecting angel walking on in front.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 76: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 201.)
  Clause 23 (Steam locomotives to be constructed so as to consume their own smoke).
  MR. CLARE READ MR. CLARE READ moved, after the word "smoke" in line 21, to insert "as far as practicable." It was quite impossible, the hon. Member said, for an engine entirely to consume its own smoke. There must be some kind of bituminous coal used in order to get up steam; and everybody who had any knowledge of these matters must be aware that it was impossible, as engines were constructed, that they could consume the whole of their smoke. He believed that locomotives on railroads were bound to consume their own smoke; but he was not aware that they did so. They were also required to use nothing but coke, but he believed they did not comply with that requirement at any time. Therefore, he thought the Amendment he proposed was not out of place, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment did not quite comprehend the effect of the clause as it then stood. It did not provide that a locomotive should be compelled to consume its own smoke. That was what the existing law did, and great hardship had arisen, and unjust prosecutions instituted in consequence. An Amendment, of which another hon. Friend had given Notice, was perfectly intelligible—namely, that a locomotive should be constructed on a principle by which it might consume its own smoke. That proposal would not be open to the objection to which this was liable.
  MR. CLARE READremarked, that the principle was one which could not be carried out in practice, as no locomotive yet invented could consume its own smoke.
  MR. BELLsaid, it was a mere delusion to suppose that, with certain kinds of coal, an engine could completely do so, although the evil was often unnecessarily increased by the carelessness of the firemen.
  MR. PAGETwas of opinion that the introduction of words to the effect that an engine should be so constructed as to consume its own smoke, as far as possible, would not meet the difficulty of the whole case. What was wanted was a provision that not only should it be so constructed, but that it should be so used as—as far as possible—to consume its own smoke.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought it was much better to leave the clause as it stood. It would otherwise lead to all kinds of litigation, and that would be, by no means, a satisfactory result. The words in the clause were found in other Acts of Parliament, and he believed they were the right words to use on the present occasion.
  MR. KNOWLESsaid, if the clause were intended to be operative, it ought to stand unaltered, leaving it to these engines to consume their own smoke, if it should be found possible. If there were any real difficulty in the matter, the insertion of the words "as far as practicable," would meet it; because his contention was, that it would be simply impossible, in all cases, to consume the smoke. He deprecated going into too much detail in a Bill of this kind, as imposing great hardship upon tenant-farmers, for he believed the time was not far distant when they would have to adopt considerably more steam-power in their operations than they used at present. He was afraid they would find that this legislation, instead of protecting them, would place them in more difficulties than any other trade experienced. He thought that, if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the clause, at all events, more complete. If it were agreed to, he would suggest that the sum of 5s. a-day should be substituted for £5.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHassured the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), that the meaning of the clause would not be altered by the insertion of this Amendment.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONbelieved engines might be reasonably expected to consume the smoke if they used Welsh

  1099
  coal, which was not much more expensive than other kinds.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONthen moved, in page 10, line 21, after "smoke," to insert the words "and shall consume the same as far as practicable." The hon. Member expressed his belief that the Amendment would meet the difficulty which had been complained of in the discussion on the preceding proposal.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Power to local authorities to make orders as to hours during which locomotives may pass over roads).
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved, in page 10, line 35, after the word "twenty-four," the addition of the following words:—
  "For regulating the use of locomotives upon any highway, or preventing or regulating such use across any bridge where such authority is satisfied that such use will be attended with danger to the public from the narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction of such highway or bridge respectively."
  The hon. Member reminded the Committee that he had proposed a similar Amendment, though not exactly in the same words, upon Clause 20, and that there appeared to be a disposition to accept the proposal, the only question being where the Amendment ought to come in. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought it would more properly find a place at this part of the Bill. The wording of the Amendment, as first proposed, had now been altered, in order to embrace the suggestions which had been made on the subject in the course of the previous discussion. The Amendment would have the effect of enabling the county authorities to regulate the traffic as regarded bridges and the passing of locomotives over them. Where danger to the public was threatened, they would have power to prohibit these engines from going over bridges. It was obvious that there might be cases, where the bridge was so comparatively weak, as not to bear the weight of one of these locomotives; and, of course, in such cases, it was only right that the authorities should be empowered to interfere in order to
  1100
  prevent accident. As the law stood, nothing could be done by them until the locomotive had actually broken down the bridge, the consequence of which was that, without a bridge, the public was put to considerable inconvenience, probably for months. The Amendment was also intended to give the authorities power to regulate the use of locomotives, with regard to the narrowness, or imperfect construction of highways. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment in its present form.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the Amendment, as proposed, did not entirely carry out what was intended. Thrashing machines, for instance, were used in the narrowest of roads; because, necessarily, they had to be removed from one part of a farm to another part. Consequently, it would be requisite to omit the words "such highway," which appeared in the latter part of the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the object which the hon. Member had in view would be gained by leaving out the words "highway or."
  MR. GREGORYexpressed his willingness to adopt the alteration just proposed, provided the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was prepared to accept the Amendment he had moved. He thought that the alteration proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would have the effect of giving the local authorities unlimited power of regulating the use of locomotives on highways, which, probably, was not his intention; whereas, the objection of his Amendment was to give them power only in certain circumstances—as narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and consider the whole matter before the Report with the view of bringing in, if possible, a clause that should carry out the spirit of the proposal.
  MR. PAGETthought it was very necessary that the Committee should have a definition of the term "regulations," so that their nature and extent might be clearly understood. It was also desirable that it should be stated whether the Amendment proposed to vest in the authorities powers of imposing regulations

  1101
  other than those provided by Statute.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the regulations would be of the nature of bye-laws.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the clause was one that should be very carefully drawn. He had not the Amendment of the hon. Member before him, and could therefore only catch the words as they were read. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should not insert the clause at that time, but confer with the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) and bring it up on Report. It was a great mistake to insert words without knowing their application, leaving them to be amended afterwards.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would undertake to review the whole subject very carefully between that time and the Report, and make the clause fit in with the general sense of the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Power of county authority to license locomotives).
  MR. SEVERNEsaid, it was only fair that the fees chargeable for licensing locomotives should be paid to the highway districts where they accrued. By this means, he believed that some appreciable compensation would be made for the damage done to roads of particular districts; whereas, if the fees were given to the whole county, it would be impossible to apportion the amount of fees earned in each highway district. He therefore moved, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the words "their county," and insert the words "each district." The two other Amendments having reference to the same part of the clause, and standing in his name, he did not propose to move.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEVERNE, in moving, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty," said, that when the damage done by each locomotive throughout the country was considered, the amount of £10 to be
  1102
  charged as fees on locomotives was too small, and he was satisfied that the sum of £20 would not be excessive. He ventured to give the Committee an idea of the increase in the cost of maintaining some roads in the districts with which he was connected, since the introduction of locomotives. The cost of one road, which was formerly £15 per mile, had been raised to £60. In another district the cost, which previously stood at £30 per mile, now amounted to £240, with the prospect of a very large rise. In the Oswestry district, the previous cost was £26 per mile, and it had now reached £500. On the other hand, what was the amount contributed by those mines and places from which the traction engines ran? In the first district, absolutely nothing was contributed; in the second, the rating was paid on £270 only; in the third district, nothing was paid; and in the Oswestry district, the rate was 15 s. The contributions under the toll system were very different indeed. In the Oswestry district, for instance, the tolls formerly payable on locomotives under that system amounted to £87 a-year; but the tolls having been done away with, the engines now ran without paying anything. He trusted that some consideration would be shown to the highway districts by increasing the fees on locomotives, and that if the sum of £20 mentioned by him was not considered sufficient, a larger sum would be named.
  SIR. JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the sum of £10 fixed by the Bill sufficient for the purpose of fees.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not prepared to go further than the limit of £10. It would be imposing too heavy a burden, to increase the fine upon locomotives that were already subject to all the various restrictions and regulations of the Bill with the object of preventing abuse of the roads.
  MR. KNIGHThoped that every engine drawing a thrashing machine would not be subject to a fee of £10, and that the right hon. Gentleman would draw up two Schedules—one for the constant, and the other for the occasional, traffic.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had promised to distinguish between "extraordinary traffic" and "temporary traffic." The traffic

  1103
  then being considered was of a constant character, and he trusted it would be dealt with when the new clause was brought up.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought it desirable that the amount of fee should be increased to £20.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Duration of Part II. of Act), agreed to.

  PART III.
  Procedure and Definitions.
  Clause 27 (Confirmation of Provisional Order) and Clause 28 (Confirmation of bye-laws), agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Recovery of penalties and expenses).
  MR. SEVERNEhoped that the Amendment standing in his name would be accepted. He thought, at all events, that the fines recoverable under the bye-laws should go to the district fund, and with that view he would move, in page 12, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "county rate," and insert the words "funds of the district where the offence was committed."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved, at the end of the clause, to add the words—
  "Except that penalties imposed in the Metropolis outside the City of London shall he paid to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police, and that penalties imposed in the City of London shall be paid to the Chamberlain of the City."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Form of appeal to quarter sessions).
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, as it was very undesirable that notices of appeal should be given verbally, he would move, in page 12, line 27, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—
  "Such notice of appeal shall be in writing, signed by the person or persons giving the same, or by his, her, or their solicitor on his, her, or their behalf."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Interpretation).
  MR. RYLANDS, in moving, in page 13, lines 11 and 12, to leave out from the words "county authority," to the end of the sentence, and insert the words—
  "The county authority for the purposes of this Act shall, until Parliament otherwise provide, be a body constituted as follows: The court of quarter sessions shall from time to time appoint a committee of not less than five, nor more than nine, justices of the peace for the purposes of this Act, and such committee shall not be affected by the termination of the session at which they are appointed. With such committee there shall be associated, with equal powers, rights, and duties, the chairman of every highway district board having jurisdiction over any road or roads within the county, and the mayor of every municipal borough within the county. The clerk of the peace of the county shall act as clerk of the county authority for the purposes of this Act. The expenses of the county authority shall be paid out of the county rate,"
  said, the principle contained in his Amendment was one which he hoped would secure the support of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He had followed to a great extent the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment accepted by him on the Valuation Bill. He (Mr. Rylands) was quite aware that it might be said that he was in some respects proposing a County Government Bill, but he was doing nothing of the kind. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth would, in a future Session, be able to bring forward a County Government Bill that would meet the necessities of the case, and ensure to the ratepayers of counties that voice in the management of county affairs, and in the levying of county rates, to which they were fairly entitled. They were, under the Bill, about to give to county authorities very extensive powers of a three-fold character. In the first place, the authorities might, if they thought fit, determine that a road, which had been an ordinary highway and as such entirely maintained by the locality through which it passed, should become a main road, and be taken from the charge of the local authorities, and that half the expense should be borne by the county. That was a very important power, and its effect would be that a number of roads, having a great traffic, and which had been maintained by separate localities, might become a charge upon the counties. He maintained

  1105
  that they had no right to give to irresponsible and non-representative authorities the power to impose that additional burden upon the county at large. The next very important power to be entrusted to the county authorities was that of turning a main road into a highway; which meant that they would have the power of converting into an ordinary highway a main road passing through several districts, and which road, under the present Bill, might be maintained, half at the cost of the county, and half at the cost of the districts through which it passed. In that case, the whole charge would fall upon the county districts. This was an important power which should not be exercised by county justices. Again, these authorities were also entrusted with the power of making bye-laws. It was very important that the County Board should be able to make bye-laws, and he had no objection to their exercising such power, within certain limits; but, clearly, that Board should be representative. It was only fair that the ratepayers should be represented; and there, again, they came upon the fact that the members of the Board, as provided for by the Bill, did not hold their position because they represented the opinions of the ratepayers, but simply because they were considered fit persons to occupy such positions, being selected solely by the Lord Lieutenant. He entirely objected to placing powers of the nature he had described in the hands of gentlemen who were in no way the representatives of the ratepayers. Without discussing the principle of the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, he might refer to it for the purpose of showing that it made provision for the representation of ratepayers. He could not understand why the Government should bring in two Bills to run at the same time, and having in view the same object, which separately embodied the opposite principles of giving representative Boards to Scotland and refusing them to the ratepayers in England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), moreover, proposed to tax boroughs for the maintenance of county roads in a way they had never been taxed before for county road purposes; and the county authorities were to have the power to take a burden off country districts—at that time charged with the
  1106
  maintenance of roads—and cast it upon large towns. He, therefore, thought it not unreasonable that, when it was proposed to alter in this important manner the incidents of local taxation, those who were so much interested in the arrangement should have a voice in the matter. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, who had two or three years ago introduced a Highway Bill, by which a representative element was admitted to the county authority, would accept the present Amendment. He could not see why there should be any hesitation whatever in assenting to the Amendment of which he had given Notice with the object of giving to ratepayers a fair and reasonable representation. It was admitted that the present measure was of a temporary character; but, at the same time, it was to be remembered that it called into existence new charges, and effected in counties a very considerable change in the incidence of taxation. The argument was, therefore, extremely strong, that if that change were made the Government should not object that the districts affected by the Bill should be represented in the management of the roads and in those arrangements which might be carried into effect. He was not concerned to adhere to the precise terms of his Amendment, but would be ready to accept any reasonable Amendment which would attain the object he had in view. He need hardly say this Amendment would be no impediment to the subsequent establishment of County Boards. It would merely operate as a temporary arrangement, and when County Boards were established, the powers over the highways now vested in the County Highway Board could be transferred to them. He would again say, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would accept the Amendment.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment, as he did not think it could be disputed that the magistrates were a fit body to perform such ministerial acts as they were empowered to do by the Bill. It had been said that there was no representation of the boroughs, but it was equally true that there was none of the parishes in the highway district. The county magistrates might be as well trusted to represent the boroughs for the purposes of the Act as the parishes and the highway districts. Then, again,

  1107
  it might be urged that the administration of the Highway Acts of 1862 and 1864 being vested in the court of quarter sessions, the court had still, under those Acts, the power to alter and vary a highway district. No doubt, that was so; and it would be quite impossible, without reviewing those Acts, to make them workable in connection with such a special county authority as proposed in the Amendment. For these reasons, and for the fact that the Bill laid down with so much precision what was to be done by the county authorities—that they were to perform merely ministerial duties, he could not accept the Amendment. He freely admitted that much more might be left to a representative body than was permitted to the magistrates; but it must be remembered that this was only a temporary measure, and at a future time he hoped a representative body might be formed.
  MR. CLARE READobjected to so much power being placed in the hands of the magistrates. He consoled himself, however, with the belief that they would not exercise it to any great extent. This measure was admittedly a temporary one, and in his district, at least, he believed magistrates would think twice before they incurred the trouble of making a new class of highways. The Amendment was, however, so wide in its terms, that he felt compelled to oppose it. Moreover, he also thought that the mere fact of these matters being left in the hands of quarter sessions would expedite the formation of county boards.
  MR. WHITWELLunderstood the President of the Local Government Board to say that this was a temporary measure; there was no doubt if it were not, it was full of injustice. It was clear that corporations and boroughs would, under the Bill, stand in a totally different position from what they had hitherto done with regard to the administration of county matters when vested, as the Bill proposed, entirely in the county justices. He did not object to the county justices; on the contrary, he thought they took as much care of the money in their charge as any other body would do; but still there ought to be some representatives of the boroughs associated with them. There ought to be some better reason given for the
  1108
  non-representation of the large boroughs which contributed so much to the rates. It was said that the ratepayers of the county were not represented, but they were so, more or less, by the justices themselves, who were large owners of land. There was no such corresponding relationship betweeen the county justices and the owners of property in boroughs. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) aimed at what was reasonable, and before the Bill passed he hoped he would propose some mode by which a representative system could be given to boroughs. While supporting the Amendment, he should not, however, offer any impediment to the progress of the Bill, but would trust to the Government for adopting the principle involved in the Amendment.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was quite aware that there were districts where no highway authority existed. The Bill required a Provisional Order to enable the county authority to throw upon a district the expense of a road previously a main road; but there was no Provisional Order required to authorize the expenses of a main road being taken off a district. That was another reason why an elected representative authority should be insisted upon. He did not think that the Government had offered any sufficient reason why the Bill should effect the injustice of imposing rates upon a locality without giving it representation in the matter.
  MR. HIBBERTagreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylancls), that there should be some representation upon the County Boards, but thought that the mode in which he proposed to effect it would be quite unworkable in the large counties in England. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be a committee of not less than five or more than nine justices; taking the municipal boroughs in Lancashire, there would be a body of something like 30 borough representatives against the nine county justices. As a similar state of things would exist in other large counties, he considered the proposal unworkable.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in Clause 31, page 13, after line 34, to insert—

  1109
  "'Urban Sanitary District' and 'Urban Sanitary Authority," mean respectively the districts and authorities declared to be urban sanitary districts and authorities by 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' except that for the purposes of this Act no part of any borough, having a separate court of quarter sessions, shall be deemed to be or to be included in any such district."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, the following Clauses were inserted:—In page 3, after Clause 7, insert the following Clause:—
  "All moneys borrowed by a highway board after the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, under the Highway Acts, shall be charged on the district fund, but nothing in this Act shall affect the security, chargeability, or repayment of any money so borrowed before the said first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine."
  In Page 6, to leave out Clause 18, and insert the following Clause:—

  Extraordinary Traffic.
  (Power of road authority to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic.)
  "Where, by a certificate of their surveyor, it appears to the authority which is liable, or has undertaken to repair any highway, whether a main road or not, that, having regard to the average expense of repairing highways in the neighbourhood, extraordinary expenses have been incurred by such authority in repairing such highway by reason of the damage caused by excessive weight passing along the same, or by extraordinary traffic thereon, such authority may recover in a summary manner from any person by whose order such weight or traffic has been conducted, the amount of such expenses as may be proved to the satisfaction of the court having cognizance of the case to have been incurred by such authority by reason of the damage arising from such weight or traffic as aforesaid.
  "Provided, That any person against whom such expenses are or may be recoverable under this section may enter into an agreement with such authority as is mentioned in this section for the payment to them of a composition in respect of such weight or traffic, and thereupon the persons so paying the same shall not be subject to any proceedings under this section."
  In Page 8, after Clause 19, insert the following Clause:—

  Appointment of Surveyors in certain Parishes.
  (Removal of doubt as to appointment of surveyor in certain parishes.)
  "Whereas doubts have arisen whether a surveyor of highways can be appointed, in pursuance of 'The Highway Act, 1835,' for a
  1110
  parish which does not maintain any highway: Be it therefore enacted, That it shall be lawful for the inhabitants in vestry assembled of any parish or place having a known legal boundary (notwithstanding that the inhabitants at large are not for the time being liable to maintain any highway or to contribute to any rate applicable to the maintenance of highways), or on the neglect or refusal of such inhabitants for the justices at a special sessions for the highways or in petty sessions assembled at any time to exercise all the powers of the Highway Acts with respect to the election or appointment of a surveyor of highways with or without a salary for such parish or place; and any surveyor so elected or appointed shall have all the powers and duties (including the power of making, assessing, and levying of highway rates) of a surveyor under the Highway Acts."
  On the Motion of Mr. PELL, the following Clause was inserted in page 4, after Clause 10:—
  (Power of county board to enforce performance of duty by defaulting highway authority.)
  "Where complaint is made to the county authority that the highway authority of any highway area within their jurisdiction has made default in maintaining or repairing all or any of the highways within their jurisdiction, the county authority, if satisfied after due inquiry and report by their surveyor that the authority has been guilty of the alleged default, shall make an order limiting a time for the performance of the duty of the highway authority in the matter of such complaint.
  "If such duty is not performed by the time limited in the order, and the highway authority fail to show to the county authority sufficient cause why the order has not been complied with, the county authority may appoint some person to perform such duty, and shall by order direct that the expenses of performing the same, together with the reasonable remuneration of the person appointed for superintending such performance, shall be paid by the authority in default, and any order made for payment of such expenses and costs may be removed into the High Court of Justice, and be enforced in the same manner as if the same were an order of such court.
  "Any person appointed under this section to perform the duty of a defaulting highway authority shall, in the performance and for the purpose of such duty, be invested with all the powers of such authority other than the powers of making rates or levying contributions by precept, and the county authority may from time to time, by order, change any person so appointed.
  "Where an order has been made by a county authority for the repair of a highway on a highway authority alleged to be in default, if such authority within three days after service on them of the order of the county authority give notice to the clerk of the peace that they decline to comply with the requisitions of such order until their liability to repair the highway in respect to which they are alleged to have made default has been determined by a jury, it shall be the duty of the county authority either

  1111
  to satisfy the defaulting authority by cancelling or modifying in such manner as the authority may desire the order of the county authority, or else to submit to a jury the question of the liability of the defaulting authority to repair the highway.
  "If the county authority decide to submit the question to a jury they shall direct a bill of indictment to be preferred to the next practicable assizes to be holden in and for their county with a view to try the liability of the defaulting authority to repair the highway. Until the trial of the indictment is concluded the order of the county authority shall be suspended. On the conclusion of the trial, if the jury find the defendants guilty, the order of the county authority shall forthwith be deemed to come into force; but if the jury acquit the defendants the order of the county authority shall forthwith become void.
  "The costs of the indictment and of the proceedings consequent thereon shall be paid by such parties to the proceedings as the court before whom the case is tried may direct. Any costs directed to be paid by the county authority shall be deemed to be expenses properly incurred by such authority, and shall be paid accordingly out of the county rate; and any costs directed to be paid by the highway authority shall be deemed to be expenses properly incurred by such authority in maintenance of the roads within their jurisdiction, and shall be paid out of the funds applicable to the maintenance of such roads."
  MR. KNOWLES MR. KNOWLES moved, in page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clauses:—
  "So much of section one hundred and forty-nine of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' as enacts that all streets being or which at any time may become high, ways repairable by the inhabitants at large within any urban district shall vest in and be under the control of the urban authority shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and, in lieu of being so vested, the urban authority shall have and be entitled to an easement only over such streets, and, in virtue of such easement, such streets, and the pavements, stones, and other materials thereof, and all buildings, implements, and other things provided for the purposes thereof shall be under the control and management of the urban authority, with full power for such urban authority from time to time to cause all such streets to be levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, altered, and repaired as occasion shall require, and to cause the soil of any such street to be raised, lowered, or altered as they may think fit, and to place and keep in repair fences and posts for the safety of foot passengers, and to protect such streets against trespass or damage.
  "The soil and freehold of such streets, and the mines of coal, iron stone, slate, and other minerals thereunder, shall be and remain the property of the person who would have been entitled thereto if the said Public Health Act, 1875, had not been passed, with all such powers of working, getting, and carrying away the same, and the produce thereof, as he would have had if such Act had not been passed."
  1112
  He said that he proposed these clauses in order to settle the point as to the ownership of the soil of the streets and highways repairable by the inhabitants at large within any urban district under the Public Health Act. It had been decided under this Act the soil of the highway vested in the urban district and not in the adjoining owners of land. That being the decision of a court of law, it followed that the minerals were also vested in the highway authorities, and the rights of mineowners and others would be seriously interfered with. It was not intended by the Public Health Act to change the ownership of the soil of the road; but since the judgment to which he had alluded, that had been its effect. This was a Highway Bill, and it seemed to him the proper place for setting right this matter.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not wish this Amendment to be taken as unopposed; but at that hour he thought the best plan would be to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  IRISH LAND ACT (1870).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ERRINGTON,in rising to call attention to the Irish Land Act, 1870; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will cause an Inquiry to be made as to how far the Act in its present form really secures to the Irish tenant the benefits intended to be conferred on him by it; how far Clause 3 has operated to check capricious eviction; whether notwithstanding the provisions of the Act excessive rents confiscating the improvements declared by it to be the property of the tenant have been exacted; and whether any, and, if so, what steps should be taken by amending the Act or otherwise to render it more effective;"
    said: Mr. Speaker, I own I approach this question with even more than ordinary anxiety, and that for two reasons.

    1113
    First, because it really is so serious and so arduous, that I sincerely wish it were in hands more experienced than mine; and, secondly, because I cannot help feeling that at first sight I may appear to be open to the imputation that I am endeavouring, by some sort of a side-wind, to induce the House to consider over again, a question which has already been discussed and decided this Session. I hope I am incapable of anything of the kind, and that if hon. Gentlemen will bear with me for a moment, I shall be able to clear myself from that imputation; and, let me add, that in the observations I have to make, I shall try to be as brief as I can, and not to trespass more than necessary on the time and patience of the House. Sir, this Motion has been most carefully framed, not with the object of merely raising a technically narrow issue, but in order to confine this discussion, as far as may be, strictly within the four corners of the Act of 1870, and thereby to give it a really practical character. We desire, in fact, to review the legislation which Parliament has already seen fit to apply to Ireland; and not, on this occasion, to discuss measures which, at some future time, it may be deemed expedient to adopt. And here I ought, in passing, frankly to admit that my own views and expectations do carry me further in the way of reform than anything strictly contained within the Act of 1870; but that is no reason why I should not loyally accept and try to make the best of that Act. And, in the same way as in the early days of Parliamentary Reform, many sincere Reformers, though they might look forward with a sort of prophetic expectation to such measures as vote by ballot or household suffrage, could still devote themselves honestly to develop the very moderate proposals of 1832—so I think it is a wise and prudent course for Irish Members to take their stand boldly on the Act of 1870; to recognize the great concessions which that Act has made to our just demands; to endeavour to improve, and amend, and make it as efficient as possible; and, above all, not to sacrifice the probabilities of to-day to the possibilities of to-morrow. Let me at once indicate the lines on which I propose to proceed. This Motion is one for Inquiry. In order to justify such Inquiry, I think I must show three things. First, I must define exactly
    1114
    what I understand to have been the objects and intention of the Act of 1870, and of those who passed it; secondly, I must make a primâ facie case, at least, that those objects and intentions have not been fairly and adequately carried out during the seven years in which the Act has been in operation; thirdly, I must satisfy the House that such an Inquiry as we ask for would probably tend to the more effectual realization of those objects, and that it would not be attended by any evil consequences. Now, Sir, as to the first of these points, the Preamble of the Act gives me little assistance, for it merely states, in the usual general terms, that it is expedient to amend the law. I am, therefore, obliged to turn, for one moment, to the debates which accompanied the passing of the Act. And here I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Act was passed not by any mere Parliamentary or Party majority; on the contrary, it received the distinct adhesion of the Leaders of both sides; it was in no sense a triumph of Party over Party, or class over class. And, although I know that there was a division on the second reading in this House, and although the minority of 11 on that occasion did contain the name of one distinguished individual, who, when he gave that vote, perhaps, little expected that he would be so soon called on to take an official interest in this great question, still I contend that that minority, by its very constitution, actually served to accentuate what was virtually the unanimous adhesion of Parliament and of the country to the principles of that measure. And I should observe, in passing, that it may probably turn out that to the concessions made in order to secure this most important quasi-unanimity are due many of the shortcomings of which we now have to complain. But what were the principles of the measure? I turn with pleasure to the speech of an hon. Friend of mine who sits opposite, one who has always been regarded as a great authority on this question, and whom certainly nobody can accuse of being unduly biassed against the landlord side—I allude to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh); and he, Sir, speaking on the second reading, most fairly, as he always does, said he supported the Bill because it contained—

    1115
    "Two essential principles which he had long regarded as affording the fairest basis for legislation upon this important subject. These two principles were, the institution of penalties to prevent capricious evictions, and the securing to the tenant the right of compensation for substantial improvements executed at his own expense."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1406–7.]
    And he went on to say—
    "The general effect would, he hoped, be to give to the Irish tenant-at-will a feeling of security to which up to this time on some properties he had been a stranger."—[Ibid., 1413.]
    I should be quite content to take this as my basis; but, perhaps, the House will allow me to quote one most pregnant sentence from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, then First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone), on introducing the Bill. Speaking of the objects of the Bill, he said—" Again, I say, the evil with which we have to contend is insecurity of tenure." He then enumerated the four forms in which this insecurity chiefly manifested itself. They were—First, by confiscation of customary privileges; secondly, by lavish service of notices to quit; thirdly, by direct eviction; fourthly, the form with which I am chiefly concerned this evening, for it resumes in itself the most pressing and practical defects of the Act. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman—
    "And the fourth has appeared when demands for increased rent have been made on the tenant founded solely upon the value which he, by his labour and his capital, has added to the soil. That power of demanding an increased rent is entirely dependent on the ultima ratio of eviction; and, treading sometimes but too closely on the heels of that power, there has been the ultima ratio itself; which, as I have shown, within the last half-century has been made far more formidable by the direct action of Parliament."—[Ibid., 355.]
    And now I am in a position to define the objects of the Act. I would divide those objects into direct objects and one indirect object; and gathering together, as well as I can, the minor and less important points, I would say that, broadly, there were two main direct objects—First, to secure to the tenant a fair and reasonable amount of stability in his occupation; and, secondly, to secure to him the full value or enjoyment of the improvements made at his own expense. Then, the indirect object, which was to be attained through the medium of these direct objects, was to set up in the country a general sense of security and
    1116
    confidence, which should go far to efface the traces of an unfortunate past, and lay the foundations for a happier and more prosperous future. And now, how far have these objects been attained? Sir, the Act was received with hope and gratitude, and, certainly, as an important part of that great message of peace of which we have heard so much. It is, no doubt, sometimes alleged that the expectations it raised were unreasonable and extravagant. They may have been so in some interested quarters; but I entirely deny that anything of the sort was general, and I concur in the force and truth of the eloquent words on this point of the right hon. Gentlemen I have already quoted. He said—
    "After so long a period of depression and despondency, I cannot, for one moment, be surprised that, in some cases where this hope has been revived, it has in the minds of some been such as to exhibit elements of a riotous exuberance. But, on the whole, I do not think there is much to complain of in this respect."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 349.]
    I am convinced, and I appeal to those who know Ireland best to bear me out, that had these two main bonâ fide objects of the Act been to a reasonable degree effected, you would have gone far towards establishing that sense of security of which we all feel so much the want. But what has been the case? I fear it requires no Inquiry to satisfy us that this indirect object has not been attained, and that so far as it is concerned the Act has been an absolute and total failure; on this point all are agreed, the friends of the Act as well as its enemies. Now, I would point out a very important consideration. If this indirect object had been attained, that would have been, I take it, clear and positive proof that the two direct objects had also been attained, and for this reason—because it is impossible to conceive a general sense of security existing without there having previously been established a fair amount of confidence in security of property of all sorts, in separate and individual cases. Now, I admit that the converse of this proposition is not equally self-evident or necessarily true, still the presumption in its favour is very strong. But I do not wish to rest my case merely on presumption, however strong; we can carry it much further; and if, in addition to this presumption, I can show that the provisions of the Act, as tested and developed

    1117
    by seven years' practice, not only permit, but absolutely lead to and encourage, violation of its avowed objects; and if, further, I can give instances, not of a mere occasional or sensational kind, but of common-place every-day occurrence, in which such violation is taking place in different parts of the country, that, I think, will be a primâ facie case on which we shall have a right to ask the House to help us to proceed. Sir, the fundamental maxim on which this Act was built, was, that a large proportion of Irish tenants were so absolutely dependent on the land, that they required more protection than the law then gave them against the possible abuse of the landlord's power. It was felt, as I have stated, by those who passed the Act, that the two principal forms under which this abuse prevailed was, first, by direct eviction—that is eviction for its own sake; and, secondly, by eviction used as a lever to enforce conditions of tenancy more or less harsh or oppressive. Recognizing, further, in the landlord' sunlimited power of eviction, the ultima ratio on which such abuses rested, they saw the necessity of placing some check on this absolute power. The Act tried to do this by laying down a scale of money payments which should act in a two-fold capacity—on the one hand, as a deterrent to the landlord from evicting except for just and serious cause; and on the other, as a compensation to the tenant for his loss from eviction, if enforced without such just and serious cause. According to the words frequently used in the debate, the payment was to be "a fine on causeless eviction;" it was also to "give to the tenant shelter against loss from eviction, and make that shelter effectual." Sir, this was a totally new and tentative idea, and, naturally, it offered great difficulties of detail. Accordingly, no part of the Act was more fully discussed than this Clause 3; and I am sure it must be evident to the House that, on the proper adjustment of this scale of compensation, the whole failure or success of the Act to protect the tenant necessarily turned. Now, if hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter for a moment, they will see that the efficiency of any such scale of payment as a deterrent to the landlord, necessarily depends on its sufficiency as compensation to the tenant; for if it falls altogether below the value
    1118
    which the tenant, in accordance with social conditions, sets on his tenancy, he will not take it into consideration when making his bargain with the landlord, and he will submit to any terms rather than willingly avail himself of it; the landlord, knowing this, will be able to enforce any terms he pleases, however crushing, short of the very last straw, without fear of having to pay the fine. We contend this has occurred in practice, and I challenge anyone to find me a case in which the tenant has ever weighed the compensation offered by the Act as against his loss in leaving his farm, even under pressure of the hardest terms. Hon. Gentlemen have heard a great deal about the value Irish farmers set upon their holdings. I can assure them, Sir, that it is a consideration which cannot be exaggerated. To the Irish tenant to leave his farm means not only distress and poverty, or, in some cases, emigration from a country he loves very much; its means the ruin and degradation of himself and his family, and it excites a feeling which we certainly should be the last to condemn—an intense dread of sinking in the social scale with his family, from the comparatively high caste of an occupier of land, no matter how small the amount, to the far lower condition of a day labourer, in a country where there is no considerable or varied demand for day labour; and where, therefore, the status of a day labourer is not what it is elsewhere, and what we should like to see it. You may consider these social conditions most unfortunate and most deplorable, but they exist, and they are the social facts under whose inexorable logic contract in land is not and cannot be free. These are the only conditions which could ever have justified Parliament in passing any such law as the Land Act, and if they justified you in passing that law to give protection to the tenant, they imperatively call on you to see that that protection is effectual. But can we say it is effectual, when we see tenants submitting constantly to the hardest terms, to the severest rents, rather than fall back on the protection of the Act? These are the facts which account for that phenomenon so strange when judged by ordinary economic rules, yet so often observed in Ireland, of men willing to give large sums for the mere possession, or good-will, as it is called,

    1119
    of land held under the severest terms, and screwed up to the extremes of rack-rent; and, on the other hand, of tenants submitting to almost any terms, and to rents which they know must keep them down to the level of pauperism, rather than relinquish their hold of the land without which life is not tolerable to them. It is in these facts, Sir, that we must seek for the standard and measure of the value which social conditions place on the occupation of land, and no compensation can ever give effectual protection if it falls entirely and far below that mark. Clearly, then, if this compensation is totally insufficient, and, therefore, inefficient, to give protection, you might as well never have passed the Act. But I go further—you had much better repeal it now, because not only does it permit, but, in its present form, it absolutely leads to, a violation of its own objects. It does so in this way. As was anticipated at the time of its passing, the Act has undoubtedly stirred up a spirit of resistance and irritation among many landlords; or, at all events, a desire, perhaps very natural, to protect themselves, as they call it, against the operation of the Act. How, then, does the tenant stand? To a certain extent he is worse off than he was; for while the compensation is too small to protect him against the old dangers, he has to contend with new dangers, which the Act itself has called into existence. One way in which many landlords are avowedly protecting themselves is by raising their rents; and that a more or less general and rapid raising of rents is going on, whatever the cause, I think none will dispute. Of course, I do not for a moment contend that this raising of rents is entirely due to this feeling on the part of the landlords. There are many economic changes going on which fairly account for it in many cases. But, I shall be asked, why should not the Irish landlord raise his rent if he pleases? Sir, my answer is very plain. The Irish tenant has never quarrelled with his obligation to pay rent; he has never quarrelled with the right of the landlord fairly and periodically to raise that rent; but what we contend—and it is the ground taken by the Act itself, and is now generally recognized in England—is, that in a great many cases the increased value of the land depends so much on the improvements made by the
    1120
    tenant, that you cannot raise the rent to the full value of the land without making the tenant pay rent for his own improvements, and, of course, depriving him of that enjoyment of them which I defined it to be one of the objects of the Act to secure to him. Now, as we have seen, the power of increasing rents rests entirely on the power of eviction. And if, as I have tried to show, the control over the latter is insufficient, clearly there is nothing, as far as the Land Act is concerned, to stand between the tenant and any increase of rent, however extreme. I may quote a few words from an authority, well known in this House, as to the power the landlord still has under the present law. Mr. Justice Barry, in his Charge on the Galtee case, speaking of those who bought property cheap with a view to make profit by raising the rents—and, of course, his statement applies equally to my argument—said—
    "Whether he gave one farthing or one million sterling for the estates his rights are the same, and whatever rent he thinks proper to insist upon he must get, or he can by law recover his land from the yearly tenants."
    Thus, I contend, that the tenant may be, and in many cases is being, either summarily deprived, by a sudden raising of his rent, or slowly, but surely, being elbowed out, by repeated smaller raisings, of the property in his improvements which the Act intended to give him. The remedy for this, while remaining strictly within the spirit and terms of the Act, is clear—you must give power to the Chairman to award a higher scale of compensation in certain cases. I am fortified in this view by the opinion of several experienced lawyers and Chairmen of counties, with whom I have been in communication, verbally and by writing, on the subject. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most experienced Land Judges, in which he tells me that though he was at first hostile to the Act, he has come by experience to recognize its great merits and value; and he says he is convinced that, with an extension of his power, under Clause 3, to grant a higher scale of compensation, he could settle satisfactorily, not only every case which now comes before him, but others which are never brought into Court at present, but which he knows to be occurring, and which are exciting and keeping up dissatisfaction and distrust.

    1121
    But there are other ways in which landlords and their tenants are defeating the intentions of the Act. One is, by forcing on tenants leases, often containing stringent and penal clauses, but the great hardship of which is, that they create a new tenancy, and, by law, place an estoppal on all claims for past improvements. I hold in my hand a specially harsh specimen of such agreements. It is a printed form for a lease for one year. I am sure English landlords would regard such an instrument with reprobation; for not only, as a new tenancy, does it bar all claims for past improvements, but it has been held by decision of the highest Court of Appeal, also, to bar claim for disturbance as a tenancy from year to year certain; but, further, being a lease, it makes the tenant liable to eviction, without notice, at the end of any year; it is, in effect, a renewal of the old practice of serving notice to quit every year as a matter of course, on tenants-at-will, in order to keep them in thorough subjection. Another ingenious plan is to induce tenants to consent to an increase of rent by a promise from the agent that he will not enforce the new rent, but will give receipt in full for it on payment of the old rent. This is, of course, a new tenancy, and places the tenant entirely in the power of the landlord. I know cases in which this has occurred, and is occurring. I mention these chiefly as illustrations of the spirit in which many landlords and their agents are acting, and trying to protect themselves against the Act. Strange encouragement, surely, to a sense of security and confidence! But I may be told—"Even if you have established that under the Act, as developed and tested by seven years' working, such violations of its intentions may, probably will, or even must, necessarily occur, we want to know, as practical men, whether in practice they actually do occur?" Sir, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the practical spirit of this House, and though I must say it is carrying that spirit rather far to insist on proof that what must necessarily occur does actually occur, still I am quite willing to meet the challenge. I do not propose, Sir, to trouble the House with further details of the important cases which have been already brought before it. The details of those cases are often very shocking and very
    1122
    telling, and they are naturally dwelt on, because, from their importance and notoriety, they have been thoroughly sifted in some public or official manner, and are, therefore, capital illustrations. I would rather, this evening, rest my argument on a number of small, obscure, but typical and widely-diffused cases of every-day hardship, showing a general tendency to defeat the intentions of the law. Here my difficulty is not want of cases; on the contrary, I have so many that I have tried to classify them according to different parts of Ireland. But there is this drawback—that in many of them I have only scanty, and, generally, one-sided information. And, although I only allude to those in which, either from my own knowledge, or the reliability of my correspondents, I can trust the accuracy of the information so far as it goes, still I feel too much the responsibility with which we speak in this House, and the respect which is due to the House, to make statements which, however true in themselves, being necessarily one-sided and ex parte, would suggest often very serious conclusions, which more complete information might qualify or explain away. But that, of course, is one reason for asking for an inquiry. Therefore, I am obliged to pick out such cases as may, by some accident, have been sifted in the Courts, or elsewhere; and this is a disadvantage, because it debars me from many, apparently, more telling cases; and it must be remembered that for one case which happens to get known, numbers are never heard of beyond the immediate neighbourhood in which they occur. At this advanced hour I shall not venture to trespass on the House with more than a very few short cases. One occurred recently in a Southern county—Clare, I think—on a small property of £50 rental, paid by five or six small tenants. The landlord, Mr. Westrop, being desirous to sell his property to the best advantage, had it valued by his agent, and the rent raised to £70, which was considered a fair increase, and at this rental it was sold. The purchaser immediately proceeded to raise the rents from £70 to £200 a-year; and not content with this, required these unfortunate tenants to make up among them a sum of £200, which he was to hold without interest, as a fund from which to recoup himself for any defalcations on the part

    1123
    of the tenants. Apparently, he thought it not unlikely such defalcations would occur. If so, he was not disappointed; for, as might be expected, the tenants were wholly unable to meet this heavy increase of rent, and soon got into the greatest difficulties. After a very short time the owner died, and the property devolved on his widow—the management, however, being in the hands of her brother—who found things in such a desperate state that he made an agreement with the tenants to reduce the rents from £200 to £150, and at this reduction to give them leases, having, first of all, liquidated the arrears of rent already accrued out of the £200 fund. The agreement had proceeded so far that the tenants had actually arranged to pay £3 each for the costs of their leases, when the widow, the owner of the property, repudiated the agreement, and ordered the rents to be raised again to £200. Again, the tenants got into difficulties and arrears, finally broke, and four families have been evicted, and are now seeking compensation from the Land Court. This, Sir, is a small case, hardly heard of out of the immediate neighbourhood; and yet, in harshness, I think, it rivals that so ably brought forward the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and has done incalculable harm in its own small way. There is another case I would cite, as a specially good illustration of the difficulty of getting at the whole truth, and thoroughly to the bottom of these cases. In this case, though it occurred, and, I may say, is still occurring in the County Longford, and in a district with which I am thoroughly acquainted, I cannot state to the House a single detail except such as have come to our knowledge through the Law Courts. Sir, for many years a considerable property in the County Longford, called Doory Hall, belonging to an old family, has been the scene of agrarian troubles and disturbances of various kinds, culminating in outrage and murder. Some years ago a bailiff was shot dead on the property, and in 1876 occurred the affair of which I am going to speak. A Mr. Cusack, a Dublin solicitor, has for many years been agent of the property; his name, I believe, now appears in Domesday Book as owner; but I am not in a position to draw any inference from this.
    1124
    At all events, he still manages the property. In 1876, he was fired at and wounded in Dublin, outside his own, house, in Stephen's Green. A man was arrested for the offence almost on the spot, and turned out to be a brother of one of the farmers on this Longford estate. He was brought to trial, and when I say he was defended by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, the House will understand how ably that defence was conducted. It was, of course, the object of the defence to explain away any motive for the offence, and the prosecutor himself, I believe, stoutly maintained that whatever the motive might be, it could not possibly be agrarian; while all over the County Longford the reverse was notorious. The Crown, however, gave clear evidence that there was ample motive in a legal sense. I need not trouble the House with the evidence itself, but I should like to quote the words in which the Judge commented upon it; and when I say that the learned Judge who presided on that occasion was Mr. Justice Keogh, I am sure the House will give his words the weight they deserve. The Judge said—
    "As to the motive, James Keenan had very considerable grounds for dispute with Mr. Cusack. Independent of the two actions for trespass, there was an action brought for the recovery of a double or penal rent, and that action was carried out to the utmost extremity. Mr. Cusack obtained judgment, and levied, and was paid, and still had £73 6s. in his pocket, the tenant having really engaged to pay him exactly half the amount which he had at present in his pocket. Therefore, it was perfectly idle to say there was not a dispute and vindictiveness between that tenant and his landlord. His Lordship did not at all concur in the observation that was thrown out, that leases of this kind were of a common character in this country. He could positively say that in the whole course of his experience at the Bar and on the Bench he never saw one of them, and he had no wish ever to see one. He (Judge Keogh) must honestly admit that he opened his eyes when he heard of a double rent reserved in the lease, and not kept as a mere threat, but absolutely enforced and paid; and it was perfectly idle to tell common sense men that an Irish peasant having been compelled to pay twice the value of his land, that he did not leave Dublin on that 25th March with feelings that would be most improperly described as good feelings towards his landlord."
    Well, Sir, the prisoner was acquitted and Mr. Cusack, under protection of police in Dublin, and of constabulary in Longford, continues to manage and receive

    1125
    the rents of this property on which we are told there is no agrarian disturbance; the property, however, continues to be a source of trouble in the country, and of anxiety to the magistrates and landlords of the neighbourhood. I see an hon. Friend of mine opposite who is a large and respected proprietor and resident in that immediate neighbourhood, and I think I may appeal to him to bear me out in what I have said. [Mr. KING-HARMAN: Hear, hear!] I believe my hon. Friend and I know a great deal more than I have stated about the case; but I do not wish to state more than has been actually proved in Court, or is matter of notoriety in the country. There is one other case I should like to quote, because it is very curious in its details, and because it illustrates well how irresponsible a landlord's power still may be. There is a property in County Cork, belonging to a Dublin gentleman; on which, among others, were two farms adjacent to each other, one occupied by an old woman who wished to retire from business, and, accordingly, she handed over her farm to a man, a stranger on the property, getting from him £500 for the good-will. It seems the landlord agreed to the transfer, but did not know of nor sanction the payment of the money. On going down to receive his rents, he was greatly startled to hear from the old woman's neighbour of the sum she had received, and to which he thought he was entitled. The farmer assured him that not only had the money been paid, but that the farm was well worth it, and that he himself would willingly have given that sum for it. "Then," said the landlord, "if you will give the money now, you shall have the farm." The bargain was struck and the money paid; the man who had given £500 evicted, and the farm handed over to the tenant, who thus became the occupier of both farms. The evicted man brought an action for compensation; he recovered a considerable sum for the disturbance; but did not recover the £500, as it had been paid without the landlord's consent or knowledge. Now comes the strangest part of the story. The landlord sent for the evicted man, and asked what he would give for the original farm of the man on whose account he had been evicted, and who now had got hold of the two farms. The answer was £500;
    1126
    again the bargain was struck, the money paid, the tenant with the two farms evicted from his original farm, which was given to the new man. Thus, in this strange comedy of exchange, the landlord succeeded in pocketing £1,000. Now, I do not mention this as a case of great hardship, for none of the parties come into Court with very clean hands; it probably was a case of diamond cut diamond; but it does illustrate how arbitrary a landlord can still be, and how well it may pay him to use his rights with the greatest severity in spite of the Act. But, with regard to the two other cases, representing, as they do, many obscure cases, never heard of out of their own immediate neighbourhood, the House can understand what intense feeling they excite; how each becomes a centre for doubt and distrust. The tenants in the neighbourhood, of course, feel when they see their neighbours so treated, that they owe their own safety not to the law which is powerless to protect others, but merely to the forbearance and kindness of their landlords. But the highest and best personal qualities are an uncertain foundation on which to raise a general sense of security and confidence, and none have better practical knowledge and experience of this than the Irish tenants. Therefore, Sir, I do ask most earnestly that the whole question in all it bearings may be inquired into. I doubt not some of the cases will be disproved. So much the better. I wish they all were, and could be shown to be baseless. I do not ask for inquiry to prove that I am right, but only to ascertain whether I am or not. I have no doubt the result of an inquiry will be to show exaggeration on both sides; but it will also prove clearly that if this Act is to be maintained, and if it is not to be a delusion and a snare, it must be amended, and amended in many and important particulars. Now, Sir, I do not want hon. Gentlemen to think that this Motion is brought forward in a crude and ill-considered way, or to suppose that, finding ourselves in difficulty, we come here in a helpless way to ask for a Commission of Inquiry to do something we know not what. On the contrary, the matter has been thoroughly thought out, and I am quite prepared to suggest solutions for many of the difficulties I have indicated, which a Commission might fairly be expected to

    1127
    consider, and, perhaps, to recommend to the House. At this late hour, however, I can only venture to touch briefly on this fresh but important branch of the subject. For instance, such an Amendment as the following might make the Act more effective in protecting the tenant against undue increase of rent, perhaps the most pressing problem with which we have to deal. The Act at present distinguishes two classes of eviction—the one, eviction under circumstances just and reasonable; the other it calls disturbance and imposes a penalty on it. I would constitute a third class, which I would call aggravated disturbance, and it would arise thus— When a tenant complains of a proposed raising of his rent as excessive, I would give the Chairman the power not merely as at present to declare the rent excessive, and award a low scale of compensation for eviction, consequent on its enforcement; but I would give him the further power, after going into all the circumstances of the case, to suggest to the landlord a fair rent, and if the landlord refused to accept it, and insisted on evicting in spite of the willingness of the tenant to pay it, to call this a case of aggravated disturbance, and to award a scale of compensation much higher than the present scale. I should like to illustrate this by figures, but it would delay me too long to do so now. This at once suggests another Amendment. The country people in Ireland, while generally admitting the fairness and impartiality of the Land Judges, complain of the very natural inexperience and ignorance of the details of agriculture and land of many of these Judges. In the Bill, as originally introduced, provision was made for the appointment of skilled assessors to advise the Court on these technical questions. I would propose to restore this provision, and appoint four assessors for the whole of Ireland, one to sit with each Chairman on the hearing of land cases. And in answer to those who tell us that it would be impossible to find men qualified for these duties, I can point to a precedent in an Act passed in 1851 to regulate the procedure in Ireland for taking lands compulsorily for railways. Under that Act, three valuators settle all the intricate questions arising in such proceedings, questions involving the most complicated valuations; and, although
    1128
    there have been appeals, the system generally has worked very well. There are, of course, other points on which amendments are urgently needed, and which a Commission would fully consider with all the light of recent experience, and with the fair prospect of making the Act more efficient. But, after all, Sir, this is no one-sided affair. We are not the only people who are asking for inquiry. Many Irish landlords, both in and out of the House, are as anxious as we are for it. I am permitted by the kindness of a friend to quote an interesting letter from one who is recognized and well known in this country as one of the fairest authorities on this question, whose letters to The Times hon. Members have no doubt often read with interest. I mean the Knight of Kerry, himself a most excellent and popular landlord, and whose only fault is, perhaps, in thinking every other landlord as good as himself. Here is what he says, writing a few days ago, and referring to opinions expressed two years ago—
    "I thought then, as I think now, that there is no class of men in the community who, under existing circumstances, are so interested as the landlords of Ireland in having such a thorough and sifting inquiry as will bring out into the fullest light of day all their dealings with their tenants under the Act or otherwise. If, as I believe most firmly, the charge that they are engaged in so exorbitantly raising their rents as to confiscate their tenants' improvements is absolutely fabulous, it is evident how intolerable it must be to those who believe, as I do, that such accusations should be made, unless an opportunity of bringing them to a test at the earliest possible moment be afforded. But if, on the contrary, I unhappily am mistaken, and those who on these subjects hold opinions the very reverse of mine are right, I hold that it is still more essential that there should be so searching an inquiry as will not only show that there are delinquents, but make it clear when, where, and to what extent, these delinquencies exist. I say, then, in all sincerity, that landlords having been thus accused, whether justly or unjustly, I hope we may have an inquiry, and of the most searching character that is possible; and I am glad to believe that nine out of every ten Irish landlords will cordially endorse every syllable I have here written."
    I have further testimony, also important in its way, though from a very different source. Mr. Nathaniel Buckley, after the rejection of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary's Motion for Inquiry into the Galtee case, writes to The Daily News to defend himself, and uses these words—

    1129
    "I have no objection to the discussion of the relationship between landlord and tenant in Ireland. It is a grave and important question, and is worthy of the consideration of all thinking men. An inquiry, honestly conducted, would probably dispel a number of delusive ideas, and a more healthy public opinion would be created."
    But, Sir, in this House we have Irish landlords who support this demand. There is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. G. Clive), who for three or four successive Sessions has had a Notice on the Paper to move for an inquiry similar to this one, with the expectation of showing that our charges against landlords are groundless. Then there is the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert), who last year, as an Amendment, to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue), was to have moved for a similar inquiry. This year, he finds the question is so pressing that he has actually introduced a Bill, which would carry out some of the reforms we advocate. I am sorry not to see these hon. Gentlemen in their places; I should certainly claim their support this evening. And, after all, I hope we have some common ground. We all desire, I am sure, to elicit the truth whatever it is—for whatever it is, it is, I am convinced, the only safe and honourable ground to go on. Surely, that is ground on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland need have no great reluctance to meet us? Indeed, I should regard his doing so this evening as a matter of course, only I am sorry to say we have so often had to admire the truly inscrutable ways of Irish Government, that I am prepared for any thing rather than to see this question dealt with in a wise and statesmanlike way. But, Sir, finally, and apart from all our differences, there is one great result this inquiry would certainly have. Whichever way it went, it would, at all events, help to open the eyes of the honest, industrious, and sober-minded majority of the Irish tenants, and convince them that their case is not yet desperate. It would show them that they have in the Land Act a valuable concession, and—not less important—the precious assurance that England desires to do them justice; while this inquiry itself would be a further assurance that English justice is not intended to be a mere vain and empty phrase. Would that be a small
    1130
    and unimportant result? I believe you can effect it. I believe that by giving this inquiry you can go far to confer on Ireland this inestimable blessing; and if you do, it will take rank among the greatest which Parliament will ever have conferred on that country. In conclusion, I would say one word about the only argument which can, I think, be urged against me with any force. I shall be told we want to unsettle a recent settlement. That we shall foment and keep up an unhealthy agitation. I can imagine, if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, who always so gallantly comes forward as the champion of what I may call the high prerogative of the landlords, does me the honour to answer me this evening, with what plausibility and eloquence he will urge all this. But the argument, plausible as it is, may be carried too far. I attack the recent settlement because it is no real settlement, and in order to lead to a real settlement. It is not we who are exciting agitation. Agitation exists; and I am confident that, so far from increasing it, nothing would tend so much to allay it as such an inquiry as I ask for. Sir, of course it is a bad thing to do anything to foment and keep up unnecessary agitation; it is a bad thing to be always meddling with delicate questions, especially when they involve the rights of property and vested interests, which must be always sacred; it is a bad thing to excite hopes in ignorant and uneducated minds which you know you cannot and ought not to gratify. But there are worse things than these. It is a worse thing to have raised honest hopes, and then by delay and disappointment to drive those in whom you have raised them into foolish or useless extremes; it is a worse thing, having begun a great act of justice, having put your hand to the plough, to look back, discouraged, because entire success may not have awaited your first efforts, or dismayed by clamour; and it is a worse thing to give any colour to that pernicious fallacy—perhaps not unnaturally too prevalent in Ireland—that to this Imperial Parliament, to this great Inquest of the nation, it is vain to appeal, I will not say for redress, but even for consideration, even for inquiry into the troubles and difficulties of a long-suffering people. Sir, I

    1131
    have shown—first, what were the objects and intentions of the Act of 1870, and of those who passed it; secondly, I have tried to make a primâ facie case that those objects and intentions have not been adequately realized during seven years' practical working of the Act; thirdly, I have tried to convince the House that such an inquiry as I ask for would probably tend to a more adequate accomplishment of those objects, and that it would not be attended by any evil results; therefore it is that I now move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will cause an Inquiry to be made as to how far the Irish Land Act, 1870, in its present form, really secures to the Irish tenant the benefits intended to be conferred on him by it; how far Clause 3 has operated to check capricious eviction; whether, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, excessive rents confiscating the improvements declared by it to be the property of the tenant have boon exacted; and whether any, and, if so, what steps should be taken, by amending the Act or otherwise, to render it more effective."—(Mr. Errington.)
    MR. KING-HARMAN, as an Irish landlord, admitted that there was some justification for the feeling of distrust which existed among certain portions of the Irish tenantry; and, as a landlord who wished to do his duty amongst his tenants, on the principle of "live and let live," he should not be disposed to object to the Resolution. While, on the one hand, it would be well to expose the dealings of those who brought discredit on their position as landlords and upon their name as Irishmen, on the other hand, the inquiry would have the effect of placing in their proper light the large body of Irish landlords who did their duty, and wished and intended to do their duty. The "Gombeen" men—those who lent money at usurious interest to the small tenants—were responsible for a great deal of the hardship which ensued. Beginning life in a small way—say as village shopkeepers or publicans—these men managed, by usury and other not very creditable means, to scrape a little money together and buy land, with the object of squeezing as much out of their unhappy tenants as possible, and yet their acts of oppression were generally alluded to as landlord cases. He
    1132
    believed an inquiry would clear the landlords, and might save the tenants.
    MR. HEYGATEcongratulated the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) on the moderate character of his speech, which so favourably contrasted with the utterances they were accustomed to hear on the subject of Irish land. He (Mr. Heygate) believed that any discussion on this question must tend to clear the public mind of many misconceptions; and on that ground he was inclined primâ facie to vote for an inquiry; but, on the whole, he agreed with what had been said on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, as to the unwisdom of entering into a "fishing" inquiry, without a sufficient justification, or the probability of being able to define the limits of such inquiry. No doubt, a few hard cases had been cited; but if, as the hon. Member stated, compensation was being sued for in one instance with every prospect of success, and if, in another, neither party came into Court with clean hands, and so on, those cases might be left to work out their own cure. It certainly did not appear to him that the hon. Member had made out a strong case for an alteration of the law; and as for a mere inquiry, it was open to this objection—that it would probably be misunderstood by the Irish people, and be accepted by them as a proof of the allegation of existing injustice, and as a prelude to further reforms. He objected to the words of the Motion referring to "excessive rents confiscating tenants' improvements," as altogether inapplicable to the case, and even as unsupported by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He admitted the temperate manner in which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his Motion; but he altogether denied that he had made out any case, either for an alteration of the law, or for the fishing inquiry suggested by the Resolution. He was well acquainted with the relations of landlords and tenants in England and in Ireland, and he must confess he had hitherto failed to discover any warrant for the exceptional treatment of the Irish tenant which was so constantly asked for. There was no more untrue allegation than that which was constantly made, that all the improvements were due to the tenant. The circumstances of different estates

    1133
    varied in Ireland as much as they did in England; but it was no more the case in Ireland than it was here, that the tenant was the only person who made any improvement in the condition of the holdings. The prosperity of the agricultural class in Ireland had increased enormously during the last 20 or 30 years—indeed, ever since the time when Ireland recovered from the Famine it had been constantly increasing. Owing to the development of the railway system, and the facilities for transit, articles of produce fetched almost the same price in Ireland as they did in England; and inasmuch as nearly everything the tenant had to sell had increased vastly in value, the Irish landlord not unnaturally looked for some portion of the increased prosperity. There had, no doubt, been a rise in rents; but nothing like the increase which was justified by the enormous increase in the value of the products of the soil. He could not, he might add, see why Irishmen, if they found they could not get on in their own country, should not try their fortunes elsewhere, as was done by Englishmen and Scotchmen; and it seemed to him that what hon. Gentlemen opposite desired was to have the law so altered as that every Irish tenant and his sons might be enabled to live at home in the particular position in which they happened to have been brought up. The hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House had alluded to the expectations which had been formed of the Land Act when it was passed, and had observed that those expectations were not exaggerated. His own opinion was, however, that it was to the exaggerated nature of those expectations that the disappointment which was felt at the working of the Land Act was entirely due. The tenants then thought that the property in the soil of Ireland was about to be transferred to them, and that they were to have fixity of tenure. If that was to be so, it was well that the House should understand how the question really stood; for the freehold of property in Ireland could not be bought up, with the view of transforming the tenants into copyholders, without the outlay on the part of the State of a gigantic sum. For his own part, he failed to see what the Irish tenants had done to entitle them above the tenantry of all other countries to
    1134
    have exceptional privileges conferred upon them such as those proposed, which would end in making the landlord a mere rent-charger on his own estate. He, therefore, deprecated discussions such as that which had been raised that evening, although he should be very glad to see a real inquiry instituted into such cases as these which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned, if it could be limited in such a way as not to raise false expectations. He could not, however, think that any good, either to England or Ireland, could result from acceding to the Motion in its present shape.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed his regret that the Motion should have assumed a somewhat aggressive form. He did not approve of the words in which the Motion was couched, because it implied that all the wrong was on one side. An inquiry ought to take place; but it should include both sides, in order to see how far this great Act, intended solely for the benefit of Ireland, did justice on the one hand to the tenant, and on the other to the landlord. If the Motion were so framed, he could not see how the Government could resist it, for this great and interesting experiment had been going on for 10 years. His own opinion was that it had worked more favourably than his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject seemed to suppose, and that it had been, on the whole, a successful experiment. He could have wished that the measure had been of a more radical character; but having regard to existing circumstances and vested rights, the experiment had probably gone as far as Parliament could have sanctioned at the time. The Act had been devised with great skill and ingenuity, and there was a testimony to its justice in the fact that both sides complained of it. But there were minor points of detail in which improvements might be made. He highly approved of the conciliatory tone which the Attorney General for Ireland had adopted in treating this question on a former occasion; but he was struck with the contrast between that and the tone of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who resisted all inquiry and all concession in a style that gave him but little hope of a disposition on the part of the Government to do justice to Ireland on the subject. This difference in two Members

    1135
    of the Government was a sufficient argument, he thought, for the inquiry asked.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that one or two of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) ought not to pass without comment. It had been said that Irishmen, if they were dissatisfied, might go to other parts of the world; but he knew, as he represented a very large body of Irishmen, how much they disliked enforced emigration, and it was no answer to their charges of injustice to tell them that they had a free field for emigration. No doubt, it was necessary for many of them, to go to America; but they were loth to go, and certainly the state of the law ought not to compel them to do so. A Commission, which would complete its inquiry in a short time, would be very useful; but he should object to a protracted inquiry, and could not in such a case consent to keeping the agitation on the Land Question in a state of suspended animation. The hon. Member had asked why Irish tenants should be treated better than other tenants. To that he replied that no exceptional advantages were sought for them; but only that they should hold the soil, after honestly paying for it, as was possible in other countries. In that respect an example was furnished by Russia, who was always able to point to the happy condition of the tenants under her land system; so that, if the Irish peasants were well treated, their case would not be unique. He did not mean to say that every tenant in Ireland should have fixity of tenure, because there were many men holding large grazing farms who had no right to it; but when he saw the large mass of the Irish nation holding their farms on sufferance, he should be glad to fix them there by some measure which would prevent capricious raising of rent and capricious eviction. His view was that a Commission ought to inquire how that might be done without injury to the property of the landlords? Such a Commission might effect good reforms, such as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), who had proposed that damages for eviction should be so high as to virtually involve fixity of tenure; but it could not be reasonably expected that the great mass of the tenantry should continue to live on sufferance,
    1136
    and rest quietly without indulgence in any form of constitutional agitation. So far from the question remaining dormant, it would be constantly pressed upon the House till it was settled; and while the landlord had more than his proper powers, and while fixity of tenure was denied, the tenants would always be on the side of agitation and change. But if the demands of the Irish tenants on this question were satisfied, the great mass of them would in the course of time become as highly Conservative as their ancestors were agitators and revolutionists. As things were, although the tenants were willing to pay a good price for the land, confiscation, the penal laws, and the system of entail had hitherto excluded them, and had made the purchases of property in Ireland all but impossible. It was not remarkable, therefore, that he should wish for the appointment of a Commission. He held that a Commission of Inquiry would explain in a satisfactory manner many points that wanted to be cleared up, and would open the eyes of many of the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the opposite side of the House. If the House would deal with this measure in a proper spirit, it would be the means of changing the present system in Ireland and put it on a sounder footing.
    MR. SULLIVANwished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion before it was one for inquiry into the working of an Act passed some seven or eight years ago. What evidence, he asked, did they produce that there was a necessity for the amendment of that Act? He appealed to the Government to say whether from the passing of the Act of 1870, up to the present hour, there had not been a complaint in Ireland that the measure was in many radical features totally defective? The Irish tenants had been willing to co-operate with the fair-minded landlords in giving the Act of 1870 a full and fair trial; but never had the House been allowed to rest under any delusion as to what was the opinion of the tenantry of Ireland on that question. At the General Election of 1874, one of the questions put to the candidates in nearly all the rural constituencies of Ireland was this—"Will you vote for an amendment of the Land Act of 1870?" Two contradictory stories were brought forward against the advocates

    1137
    of a change in that measure in the House. The first was, that they were agitators who created that demand on the part of the Irish tenancy; and the next was, that they were the creatures of the agitation on that subject, that they made that demand because there was an agitation behind them in Ireland, and because they wished to make their seats secure at the next Election. Those two assertions refuted one another, and could not stand together. The real fact was that in Ireland there was a genuine belief that the Act of 1870 had utterly failed in many respects to carry out the intentions of its promoters. Since that measure became law, Bills dealing with the Land Question had been proposed by Members on both sides of the House. How were they to ascertain what there was faulty in their existing legislation, and where the remedy for it lay, except by inquiry? When serious complaints were made against the English Factory Acts, they instituted an inquiry into them by a Parliamentary Committee, or by a Commission. Why should not a similar course be adopted in regard to the Irish Land Act? When the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) brought in a Bill to benefit the tenantry of Ireland, the House voted it down, and would not listen to the proposal. When another hon. Member introduced a Bill of a much more moderate character, it was also voted down by the force of the majority. The House was asked that night by hon. Gentlemen on both sides to grant an inquiry into what might be necessary to be done, and then to do it. If they resisted that simple demand, must not the tenantry of Ireland fairly conclude that they refused to inquire into the justice of their complaints? The object of this Motion was to institute an inquiry not into the nature of the tenants' demands, but into the partial success, or partial failure, of the Land Act of 1870. He deprecated the carrying of this debate into any other direction than that. English land tenure was an exceptional tenure in Europe, and the traditional land tenure in Irish minds was the most prevalent land tenure in Europe. It was by the exceptional development of manufacturing industry that England herself had been saved from a great explosion on this subject. He had been a tenant-right agitator in his own humble way.
    1138
    He had stood on many tenant-right platforms in Ireland. He never heard put forward in Ireland, on any tenant-right platform, a single demand that did not cordially recognize not only all the existing rights of the landlord, but his fair share in the increase in the value of land. Go into the Landed Estates Court to-morrow, and see whether the capitalized sum representing landed property in Ireland was less than it was before 1870. That was the test. Tried by that test, all the prophecies of evil, all the frightful bugbears that were raised to terrify English landlords in the debates of 1869 and 1870 had been scattered, and proof had been established in the Landed Estates Court that the Land Act of 1870 had raised the value of land for the benefit of the landlords of Ireland. He wished the House to consider, not the conduct of Irish landlords, not the conduct of Irish tenants; but whether they would do to and in Ireland, as they did to and in England, when they wished to ascertain whether a grand experiment of political or social legislation had or had not answered its purpose?
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he thought they should all feel much indebted to his hon. Friend for the admirable manner in which he had brought forward his Motion. It was quite evident that the Land Laws as they stood at present were not in a satisfactory state. They had abundant evidence to show that wanton, harsh, and capricious evictions were still possible—nay, actually occurred; and that the checks devised by the Land Act were wholly inefficient. There was nothing to prevent a landlord from demanding an exorbitant rent and evicting his tenant summarily for non-payment, though he might have spent years of toil and the earnings of a lifetime in bringing his land to its present condition. He followed his hon. Friend in thinking it was time to enforce practically, and beyond all question, the two great objects of the Land Act, which were still evaded. These two objects were—to guard against capricious eviction, and to protect the improvements of the tenants. Neither of these objects could be firmly secured until some satisfactory means were discovered of arranging rent. He himself had introduced a Bill to provide for the settlement of rent by arbitration, and to restrain cases of

    1139
    capricious or harsh eviction summarily, and he held that it was in some such way as this they might most successfully approach the Land Question. He would prefer half a measure now, than a whole one when the people had fled the land, and there was no longer anyone to evict. Such a measure as this could, he believed, be opposed by no well-meaning landlord anxious for the welfare of his country. What they asked for now was inquiry. It was too late in the Session to hope to pass any measure into law, but they thought inquiry the next best thing to legislation. Even Mr. Buckley wished for a just and impartial inquiry, and said in a letter that his rentals would compare favourably, as far as the interests of the tenants were concerned, with either his (Mr. Moore's) or any of his neighbours'. He accepted Mr. Buckley's challenge, fearless as to the result, and therefore supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford.
    MR. BRUENsaid, that as he knew the accusations were groundless with reference to the owners of Irish land as a body, he would not fear as an Irish owner of land to face any inquiry that could be held by the House into their conduct, provided that inquiry was conducted in an impartial manner. But he felt that he stood there not merely as an owner of land, but as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, and that he was bound to consider the question not merely in the interests of owners of land, but also in the interests of the whole country. Viewing the matter in that light, he asked what would be the object of the inquiry, and what would be the result? It was manifest, from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), what the objects of the inquiry would be; and he must say, considering those objects, that he did not see the chance of any good resulting from the inquiry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, what had been endorsed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that what was wanted was fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had disclaimed the idea of fixity of rent.
    MR. BRUEN: At all events, the landlord should not fix the rent. That notion was very far removed from the idea which the House had of what belonged
    1140
    to the ownership of land. It had been said that the landlords of Ireland stood up for high prerogative. They had never done so. What they asked for was the rights given them at Common Law, and that what was held to be the property of landlords throughout the Kingdom should be theirs. When he looked at the different position taken up by those who advocated this inquiry, he could not think there was room for a settlement of the claims of the two parties concerned. The hope he had entertained of such a settlement had been entirely dispelled by the speeches he had heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The proposal before the House must be looked upon as a continuation of the agitation which had been carried on for some years for depriving the landlords of Ireland of the possession of their land. The broad question for the House to consider was whether they would take a step in that direction by the appointment of the Commission asked for. As a landowner, he might shut his eyes to the danger, and say—"Let us have an inquiry," conscious that the landlords of Ireland had nothing to be ashamed of. He could not think that a few instances of oppression, even if bonâ fide, could justify the accusation brought against the landowners of Ireland. Feeling that this inquiry would not tend in the direction of peace, he must oppose it.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he had heard with pleasure, in the course of the debate, a suggestion of compromise in regard to the Irish Land Question from an Irish Member sitting on the Conservative side of the House. He hoped that, in the course of the discussion which must follow, it would be found that the spirit of compromise and conciliation had largely spread among those who opposed the Irish Land Bill before it became an Act of Parliament. The supporters of the Motion before the House undoubtedly wished to prevent the landlords in Ireland from changing the rents of their tenants-at-will; but they only desired to do this within certain limits which they thought reasonable, and which they believed would not interfere with freedom of contract between landlords and tenants. The object of the Land Act was to prevent landlords raising their rents beyond reasonable limits, and all that was now wanted was to carry

    1141
    out that principle in its entirety. It was part and parcel of the law of the land, and he did not think it reasonable to describe as revolutionary the speeches of his hon. Friends the Members for Galway and Louth, who asked that the letter of the law should be observed. The Land Act of 1870 laid down lines on which justice might be done alike to the landlords and tenants; and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Longford had done wisely in so framing his proposal as that its only effect could be to widen and lengthen those lines.
    Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen); because, although he and his Colleague had the reputation of being among the best landlords in the country, he should have thought the hon. Member would have supported a Motion which would have the effect of restraining somewhat the power of landlords who were not disposed to act with equal fairness. The only intention of his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion was to prevent capricious evictions, and to put an end to the notices to quit which fell like snowflakes upon the people of Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland had challenged hon. Members from Ireland to move for an inquiry into the working of the Land Act. Now that they did so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman venture to oppose them? The case for an inquiry appeared to him unanswerable, because in three years before the passing of the Land Act, there had been in Ireland 4,253 ejectments at one sessions against tenants; while in the three years after the passing of the Act, there had been 5,641, showing an increase of 50 per cent after the Land Bill had passed, though the Act was passed to prevent that very thing. Such a fact rendered an inquiry necessary. There would be an opportunity, by granting this inquiry, of having this question settled by enabling the House to decide whether the Act of 1870 had failed or not. He thought, however, the Motion would be improved by the omission of all the words after "capricious evictions," and he begged to move an Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "by it" to the end of the Question.—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the debate had wandered very much from the point at issue, and he did not see what the question of the Land Laws of France, or any other country, had to do with the matter. He wished to support the Resolution in its amended form, as proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), which he thought was an exceptionally harmless one. In the first place, the Land Act of 1870 was in a sense the most revolutionary Act ever passed in this generation, for it dealt with all the conceivable notions as to the rights of property in a most extraordinary manner. He, however, did not pretend to pronounce an opinion as to whether it was a good or a bad revolution. It was most interesting to know how it worked; and therefore he thought it would be a good thing to have a Commission or Committee, which would command the confidence of both landlords and tenants, to see how it had worked. The Land Act of 1870 professed to be a settlement of the Land Question; but, as a matter of fact, it was notorious that it was not so. The Land Question in Ireland occupied, at the present moment, a very prominent position; and, although the agitation on the question had not that ferocious aspect it formerly presented, still the proportions of it were as great now as ever they were. He did not believe any hon. Member would venture to deny that, and he asked if anyone could get up in his place and say that tenant-right did not now turn Elections in the North of Ireland? Then, there was another reason why a Committee should be appointed. The Government the Session before last granted an inquiry into the Bright Clauses of the Land Act, and the result of that Committee was, that the Bright Clauses were found to be practically inoperative; and yet those clauses were said to be the most important part of the Act. It would be, therefore, fair to assume by analogy, that some other parts of the Act were inoperative, and it would be well to inquire into the whole matter. Believing, as he did, that the Resolution was in accordance with the

    1143
    views, not only of the Irish tenants, but of Irish landlords, as represented by several hon. Members, he should not feel justified, as an English Member, in refusing his support.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that his noble Friend who had just spoken had given utterance to a sentiment in which he entirely concurred. The noble Lord described the Land Act of 1870 as a revolutionary measure, though he declined, with commendable caution, to give any opinion as to whether the measure was a good one or a bad one. He (Mr. J. Lowther), however, should not attempt to keep any veil over his opinions, and he had never felt it consistent with his duty to simulate any veneration for that Act, or to conceal the fact that neither he or his Colleagues were in any way responsible for that Act of Parliament. Reference had been made by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion, to the fact that he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not take any part in introducing that Act, and that he had formed one of those who had felt it to be their duty to protest against the second reading of the Bill. He had never regretted having taken that course; and, if the same circumstances arose again, he should do the same. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion, in such courteous and considerate terms, that he did not shrink from any vote he had given on the Land Question; and he would not change any vote he had ever given, even if an opportunity was afforded him for so doing. He did not consider, as some hon. Members appeared to do, that it was the duty of an official to immediately recant the opinions he had entertained previous to taking Office, and to speak with bated breath, or, in a species of official jargon, to express great veneration and regard for the actions of his Predecessors; but having fully repudiated all responsibility for, and sympathy with, the Act of 1870, he wished to observe that it by no means followed that he was not as anxious to preserve that Act in its integrity as, indeed, any hon. Member in the House. He would mention one reason why the Act should not be removed from the Statute Book, and it was one which commended itself especially to his mind. It was, that under this Act had grown up vested interests which he felt himself bound to regard;
    1144
    and the vested interests of tenant-farmers should be as much an object of solicitude to Conservatives as the vested interests of anyone else. The Act of 1870 having passed both Houses of Parliament, and received the Royal Assent, he could not make himself a party to any scheme for depriving any person of any vested interest acquired under that Statute, whatever his opinion of it might be. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion gave what professed to be instances calculated to induce the House to re-open the Land Question in Ireland. Several hon. Gentlemen had spoken as if this inquiry could be held without opening any great question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had said he could not have his hands tied in the matter during the sitting of any Commission; but would hold himself at liberty to ignore its very existence, and to proceed with Bills and Motions all the same. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had given some instances which, to his mind, justified an inquiry; but with regard to these instances, the hon. Gentleman was so studiously vague that it would be impossible to follow up the clues he gave. But the House had been told that there were several instances of grievous wrong, and three in particular, in one of which the estate in question turned out to be only 50 acres in extent. [Major NOLAN: I said the rental was £50.] He was obliged for this correction, which showed that he (Mr. J. Lowther) had understated his case against the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that the estate in question was probably of even smaller extent that he had supposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next gave a case in his own county with which he was, no doubt, well acquainted; but which he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think it necessary to follow up, as it failed in any way to prove his case. The next case with which the hon. and gallant Member dealt was one which had already formed the subject of debate in that House—namely, that of the Galtee estates. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had said on a recent occasion that the House ought to regard with considerable leniency any shortcomings on the part of those who had been, as it were, pitchforked into the position of landowners without being fitted for the position by previous education.

    1145
    In his (Mr. J. Lowther's) opinion, Mr. Buckley was not in any way deserving of the censure that had been passed upon him by several hon. Gentlemen. They had omitted to consider his conduct with that leniency which the case deserved. He ventured to think that the case of Mr. Buckley was not well chosen by the hon. and gallant Member, because Mr. Buckley—whom he believed to be a most ill-used person—was an instance of the carpet-bag element. Mr. Buckley took possession of the land which he bought in the open market, and endeavoured to utilize it in much the same way as he would have done with railway shares or foreign stocks, or property of any other kind. That gentleman was, he thought, an instance of what was to be expected if land were as easily disposable as many of the English political friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think desirable. Mr. Buckley had been unfairly singled out for a great amount of unnecessary criticism, in his opinion; although he was far from saying that the class of proprietors of land, of which he was a type, were the best that could be provided for Ireland. He was not disposed himself to believe very much in Free Trade in anything; but he thought to enable land to be hawked and handed about, with a mere regard to its market value, would be a very bad state of affairs to introduce into any country. Those hon. Gentlemen, who appeared to have so great a regard for the means of an easy acquisition of land, would do well to reflect upon this fact—that it was not the old proprietors of land in Ireland who had given the cause of offence which had been so readily taken hold of; but, in almost every instance, it was the gentlemen from a distance—the examples of Free Trade in land—who had brought discredit, if such had been brought, upon the class of landlords in Ireland. That should be a warning to those gentlemen who advocated the removal of reasonable and just impediments to a promiscuous transfer of land. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken of fixity of tenure, and appeared to think that, though it was not very desirable in the case of large holdings, it was in the case of small farms.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that what he stated was, that he might forego it in the case of large grass farms.
    MR. J. LOWTHERobserved, that he was not for the moment describing the state of cultivation in which the farms might be, but only that he understood the hon. and gallant Member to wish to exempt large farms from the operation of fixity of tenure, and to make it apply to small holdings only. With regard to the small holder, as he had before said, he was not prepared to advocate any violent disturbance with the existing state of affairs; but he was at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen should come down to that House night after night, and describe a state of things which they believed to exist amongst the tenant-farmers of Ireland—a state of affairs which certainly would reduce the so-called farmers to beggary—and suggest the remedy they did for it. What was the remedy suggested by them? He was not referring to any past debate in particular, but to the general tenour of the discussions in the House, to the effect that the occupying classes in Ireland were in a state of almost penury. A description had been given not long ago in which the tenants were said to be entirely dependent for their daily bread upon the produce of the soil; which, through a bad season or other causes, might not be available at the moment. The House was told that they had no other source of livelihood, and that their farms were not sufficient to enable them to live comfortably. It was naturally to be expected that hon. Gentlemen would ask Parliament for some remedy for that state of affairs—some remedy which would hold out a prospect of terminating it. It had always been said by economists that the great object of legislation with regard to land was to increase its capacity for producing food for the people. Bearing that in mind, it was naturally to be expected that legislation would have been demanded, with a view to the consolidation of farms, and the conversion of the small occupiers who, as such, were unable to exist, into daily labourers, or else to hold out to them a prosperous career in other climes. The remedy proposed was of an exactly opposite character; it was simply to rivet the occupying tenants to the soil, and perpetuate a state of affairs which their advocates described as productive of misery to themselves and the country. A more illogical deduction

    1147
    than that he never heard. These hon. Members—presuming that after reflection they still entertained these opinions—were bound to come down to the House and propose some scheme, or suggest some remedy, for those evils of which they complained. But by asking the House to establish fixity of tenure, the evils of which they complained would be stereotyped instead of removed. As hon. Gentlemen opposite—who had, no doubt, often argued the case over to themselves—must know, what was required was some means, without violence and without injustice, and, if possible, with the consent of all concerned, of consolidating farms and removing a vast number of superfluous fences and tumble-down buildings, and erecting substantial holdings. No one would wish to secure such a result without being sure that scrupulous justice was meted out to all concerned, and that the feelings, and even the prejudices, of the persons interested were in every way regarded. That was the sort of Utopia which they might picture in Ireland. It had been said that there were no means of livelihood open to the tenant-farmer in Ireland if he ceased to occupy land; that there was no such thing as daily labour in Ireland. If that were the case, he much regretted it; but he knew that so consistently was that dinned into the ears of the tenants, that there was great difficulty in inducing any person who had once been an occupier of land, however small its area, to partake in what was called by some in this country the dignity of labour. It appeared to him that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would encourage tenant-farmers in Ireland to think labour a degradation. But to say that a man who was in the condition in which the bulk of the tenantry on the Galtee estate were situated—that of almost starvation—would degrade himself by earning £1 per week, he could not understand. The Amendment which was proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in no way affected his opinion of this Motion. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had said that if the words which the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) suggested should be eliminated, were omitted from the Motion, it would express an opinion which would be accepted
    1148
    by the House. But he (Mr. J. Lowther) failed to see how the omission of those words would affect the Motion. The main objection to the Motion was that it would encourage, in the minds of the tenantry of Ireland, the notion that fresh legislation was intended. It would carry on that mischievous agitation which it was the ostensible object of the Irish Land Act finally to quell. They were not favoured that night with the presence and assistance of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who could be held responsible for that Act. But in the absence of its legitimate defenders, he must ask the House not to re-open an agitation which could not fail to be most prejudicial to Ireland.
    MR. BUTTsaid, that in the very short time which he intended to occupy the House, he should confine himself entirely to the Resolution. Perhaps he might depart from that one moment, while he ventured to corroborate and explain, as a matter of which he had professional knowledge, a statement made by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington). It was a fact proved beyond all doubt in a Court of Justice, that the landlord who had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman) let his farms in this way. He let them at double the rent he intended to ask; but gave notice that if rent were paid on the gale-day, he would accept half. That did not remain a dead letter, for every tenant was in the power of his landlord who did not pay on the day named, and every tenant in the power of his landlord on that estate—and it was a large one—was charged double rent; and it was proved that if any dispute arose, or the tenant quarrelled with his landlord about another matter, he was sued, and double rent exacted from him. The learned Judge who tried the case commented very strongly on such conduct, and said that he had never seen such a covenant in an Irish lease. He (Mr. Butt) had seen such a covenant in many Irish leases, though it was not intended to be enforced, but only to keep tenants under the power of their landlords. He did not complain of the boldness and frankness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated his opinions; but he did expect him to follow them up by saying, as he did say, that the rights which had

    1149
    grown up under the Land Act were entitled to the same solemn respect as any others by law established. Upon that ground it was that he thought the right hon. Gentleman was logically bound to vote for the present Motion. Let him ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the dispute between them? No one could deny that the Act gave to the tenant the improvements formed by his own industry. In 1852, when the late Lord Derby was Prime Minister, he introduced a measure in which was recognized the property of the tenant in all improvements of the soil. He regretted that Lord Derby was prevented from giving the Irish the benefit of that Act; but, nevertheless, the property of the tenant in his improvements was then solemnly recognized. After a lapse of 18 years the principle was sanctioned by law. The allegation now brought forward was that that property was interfered with by the landlord increasing the rent arbitrarily, and that in the same ratio as the value of the soil was increased by the labour of the tenant. If he did not describe that as robbery, he must call it a violation of the rights of property as given by law to the tenant. Their allegation was that that occurred every day in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman was really persuaded that these were vested rights, why did he not join them in asking for this inquiry? The case of the Galtee estates had not been brought before the House to parade the miserable condition of the tenantry thereon; but to show that tenants who had created the whole value of their farms had been deprived of the results of their labour. When the tenants had expended a large amount of money their rent was raised, notwithstanding the increased value of the holding being entirely due to the tenants' expenditure. How Mr. Buckley had acted was immaterial, except to prove that, under the existing law, he was able to charge the tenant for improvements to the soil, which never would have existed but for the tenant's expenditure. Was not that a violation of the vested rights secured by the Land Act? Yet tenants were bound to submit, because the provisions of the Land Act were not sufficient to protect them. Some time ago, when he was taking a more active part on public questions than at present, Mr. Edward O'Brien had clearly shown, in a letter addressed

    1150
    to him, that the weak point of the Act was that landlords, by asking for small increases of rent from time to time, were able virtually to rob their tenants. Of that he had himself seen ample proof. The landlord would raise the rent 2s. 6d. an-acre—for that the tenant could not go to law and obtain compensation, and so it went on. Lord Carlingford, in reply to Mr. O'Brien, admitted that that evil existed; but thought it was not of so extensive a character as Mr. O'Brien supposed. The House had some reason to complain; and for his part he regretted that some of the hon. Gentlemen, who shared with Lord Carling-ford the responsibility of the Land Act, were not in their places that night listening to the complaint of the Irish people, that their rights were not sufficiently protected by that Act. This had nothing do do with the question of fixity of tenure, or with any of the wild expressions of opinion that might have been uttered. All that was asked for was that the House should consider whether an Act passed for the purpose of protecting tenants against the evils which previously existed under the system of landholding in Ireland had, or had not, succeeded in effecting its object? and this, he thought, a perfectly fair demand to be made. Did those who opposed the Motion of his hon. Friend wish him to repeat the history of the merciless evictions of tenants which had made the name of an Irish landlord a by-word in Europe; or to recall the words in which the practice to which he was referring—and under the operation of which evicted tenants had died in the ditches—had been denounced in the public Press, from The Times downwards. He could not but think it strange that there should be any objection in the minds of the present Government to appoint a Commission, nominated by themselves, for the purpose of inquiring into the working of an Act passed by their Predecessors in Office, in despite of their own strenuous opposition. Furthermore, he could see no reason why any other than the class of bad landlords could object to the proposed inquiry. If the inquiry was made, it would redound to the credit of the good landlords, and would also induce in the minds of the Irish people that they might look to the House of Commons for justice—so turning them from the wild counsels which were constantly

    1151
    offered to, and sometimes accepted by, them. He would suggest, in order to carry out the views which he held, that the proposed Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) should be slightly modified, and that there should be omitted from the Resolution all the words after the words "upon him by it." This would confine the matter to a simple inquiry without committing the House to any expression of opinion whatever. The House would not refuse an inquiry if it was shown to them that under an existing law certain tenants had the power to filch away the rights, or any part of the rights of the landlords; was it not equally just and reasonable for the tenants to ask an inquiry as to the truth of their allegation, that the landlords were filching away from them rights which had been vested in them by an Act of Parliament? He asked the House to act upon the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the rights of the tenants were entitled to respect equally with those of the landlords.
    MR. COGANwished briefly to state the grounds on which he intended to vote for the Motion. Many speakers on the opposite side had confined themselves to answering the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), instead of addressing themselves to the real question before the House, which had been brought forward in a speech of great ability and moderation. He saw nothing in the Motion to raise the question of fixity of tenure or valuation of rents; because neither of those benefits were proposed to be conferred upon tenants by the Irish Land Bill, which afterwards became an Act of Parliament. He had heard with regret the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen); because his opinions on questions of this kind were, as a rule, entitled to great weight by reason of his high character, and the fact that he was well-known to be a good landlord. It was as much in the interest of the landlords—and particularly of landlords like the hon. Gentleman—as of the tenants, that this inquiry should take place, and he was therefore surprised to hear his hon. Friend shrinking from it. A fair
    1152
    inquiry would, in his opinion, show that the Irish Land Act had conferred great and inestimable benefits upon the Irish people; but that it was capable of improvement in many of its details, alike in the interest of the landlord and the tenant class. He thought an inquiry, such as was proposed, would put down agitation on the Land Question, and that the Government, by refusing to grant such inquiry, would be responsible for any agitation that might arise hereafter.
    MR. BROGDENsaid, he should not have taken any part in the debate, but for the fact that he stood in a somewhat peculiar position in reference to the Galtee estate, which had been mentioned in the course of the debate. He was for many years part-owner with Mr. Buckley of the property, and he could say positively that during that time the tenants were as happy and prosperous as any tenants in Ireland. He did not mean to say that he would defend everything that Mr. Buckley had done, because many men of high principle had been driven into obstinate and possibly mistaken courses by attacks upon them which no reason could justify; but he was sure Mr. Buckley would support an inquiry such as was asked, because he believed it would tend to the pacification of the tenants and the consequent good of the whole country. If the inquiry was granted, he felt sure that Mr. Buckley would be happy to afford all the information in his power with regard to his own estate; and he also felt equally sure that while the Land Act had proved advantageous to the tenants, it could be shown that in several points of detail it was capable of improvement. It was a pity that the real short-comings of the Act had not been allowed to be considered on their own merits, but had been mixed up with a great deal of personal matter which had, to a great extent, obscured the judgment of those by whom the matter was considered. In conclusion, he could not help expressing a hope that on reflection the Chief Secretary for Ireland would think he had used too strong language in describing Mr. Buckley as a carpet-bagger, who was pitch-forked into the position of a landlord without previous experience.
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member

    1153
    for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), with the modifications suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt).
    Question, put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    The House divided:— Ayes 67; Noes 134: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 202.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)

  [BILL 214.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. KNOWLES MR. KNOWLES moved, in page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clauses:—
  "So much of section one hundred and forty-nine of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' as enacts that all streets being or which at any time may become highways repairable by the inhabitants at large within any urban district shall vest in and he under the control of the urban authority shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and, in lieu of being so vested, the urban authority shall have and be entitled to an easement only over such streets, and, in virtue of such easement, such streets, and the pavements, stones, and other materials thereof, and all buildings, implements, and other things provided for the purposes thereof shall be under the control and management of the urban authority, with full power for such urban authority from time to time to cause all such streets to be levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, altered, and repaired as occasion shall require, and to cause the soil of such street to be raised, lowered, or altered as they may think fit, and to place and keep in repair fences and posts for the safety of foot passengers, and to protect such streets against trespass or damage.
  "The soil and freehold of such streets, and the mines of coal, iron, stone, slate, and other minerals thereunder, shall be and remain the property of the person who would have been entitled thereto if the said Public Health Act 1875, had not been passed, with all such powers of working, getting, and carrying away the same, and the produce thereof, as he would have had if such Act had not been passed."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHadmitted the importance of the question raised by the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles). A recent decision in the Courts of Law had caused some anxiety among the mine-owners
  1154
  on the subject to which the clause referred. So far as he had been able to get advice on the question, that decision was not one on which he could ask the House entirely to rely. If it were altogether a reliable decision, it would undoubtedly have been his duty to propose an Amendment of the Public Health Act. His hon. Friend's clause was, in point of fact, an Amendment of that Act. Its object was to make the law clear on this point, that the vesting of roads in the hands of the urban sanitary authority should be a vesting for certain purposes—namely, for the repair and management of the streets, and for securing to the rightful owners the soil and freehold underneath such streets, and especially providing that the soil should carry with it the right of minerals beneath the surface, besides other purposes. For his own part, he could not see his way to a clear view of the subject; and, therefore, was not prepared to accept the clause. If his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw it, he would promise either to introduce an Amendment into the Bill on Report, or bring in a measure to amend the Public Health Act, so as to protect the rights of minerals in urban districts. This law as to the soil of roads had been in force since 1848, and until the recent decision to which his hon. Friend had referred, did not appear to require amendment.
  MR. KNOWLESsaid, he would willingly withdraw the clause, after the explanation which had been given by his right hon. Friend. The recent decision had, he believed, been obtained on the Public Health Act of 1875; but, in his opinion, that Act never contemplated the confiscation of minerals from the present owners, though there seemed to be some doubt upon the point. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to frame such words as would meet the case. He, accordingly, withdrew the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. R. YORKE, in moving the following Clause:—
  "Any county authority may, for the purpose of providing a county road fund, apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order empowering them to levy tolls on any main road within their jurisdiction; and the Local Government Board shall thereupon cause a local

  1155
  nquiry to be made by one of their inspectors, who shall report to the said Board, and the said Board may issue such Order, prescribing therein the amount of tolls to be levied, the situation of the toll-gates, and generally the terms and conditions under which such tolls are to be levied and collected,"
  said, in previous Bills on this subject, there had always been inserted clauses similar to the one he now submitted to the consideration of the Committee. There was a power given in the Bill of 1876, with reference to turnpikes actually in existence. In the County Boards Bill, introduced in the present Session, there had been no power of retaining tolls inserted in any of its provisions; but there had been the power of re-imposition in certain cases; but so jealously was it guarded by all kinds of restrictions, notably by one requiring the county authorities to satisfy themselves that the traffic of the towns would not be prejudicially affected by the tolls, that it was obviously impossible to pass such a provision. In proposing this clause, he could not found himself on anything better than the Report of the Turnpike Committee of last year, which was very strongly in favour of some exceptional provision for cases of this kind. There was, in East Gloucestershire, a case in point. On one side of the parish was a road-using business, and on the other a railway station; and, as the road-using business was conducted through the highway of the parish, the farmers would have to bear the whole cost of the wear and tear of the road when the turnpike had been taken away. This was a grievance which the Government ought to redress, before it became a very heavy burden. He recommended the insertion of the clause, because he hoped that, in the future, there would be two categories of roads—first, the "main roads," and their definition should be such roads as he had described, which were used simply, and almost entirely, for through traffic. On such roads he hoped there would be turnpikes exceptionally introduced, in order to meet the hardships inflicted on the ratepayers in the district where the exceptional circumstances prevailed. The second class would be those roads now called main roads; but which, after the removal of the turnpikes from them, and if there was no through traffic, would be reduced to the lower category of highways. These definitions asserted an intelligible
  1156
  principle, and as a step in that direction he moved the introduction of this clause. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee of last year showed how they felt the grievance of which he now complained, as appeared from the following passage in their Report:—
  "No greater cases of prospective hardship on parishes came before your Committee than where the line of road, with a very heavy mineral and trading traffic between large towns, or to and from railway stations, passed for a considerable distance through agricultural parishes. And whatever may be the provisions of a general measure as regards other parts of the country, it seems to your Committee that some special provision will have to be made to meet these cases.
  "Your Committee are still of opinion that the compulsory formation of Highway Districts will not alone suffice. It is clear that in some cases a larger area of management is required, and, in many instances, the local authorities should have power to meet exceptional cases by exceptional measures."
  Clause (Mr. Reginald Yorke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. WHITWELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not accept the clause, because it would alter the character of the Bill. This measure was a rating Bill, and the insertion of the proposed clause would convert it into a Turnpike Bill. Although the erection of a toll-bar under the clause would require the sanction of the Local Government Board, that was no security against the county authority, which was not representative of a borough, erecting a toll-bar close upon the outskirts of a populous town. The proposal was so exceptional, that he trusted the Committee would not approve of it.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONthought his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had somewhat misunderstood the Report of the Turnpike Committee of last year, which was founded on circumstances altogether different from those which his hon. Friend had stated. No doubt there was great hardship under the existing law. If certain parishes outside some manufacturing towns in Lancashire, Yorkshire and other counties were to remain as they were, without adopting the Highway Acts, no doubt it would be necessary to keep up turnpikes;

  1157
  but the Committee had this year made a recommendation that disturnpiked roads should be supported partly out of a county rate. Therefore, they had entered upon an entirely different principle from that which had been adopted before. They could not have two different principles operating at the same time. The turnpike system was, no doubt, very good, so long as the large boroughs were not brought under its operation; but directly they brought in the large boroughs into the county rate—and he hoped all boroughs would be brought in—then they did away with the necessity for the turnpike system. He should like to see the county rate spread over all the boroughs, or else the boroughs, with quarter sessions, should contribute for the use of the road outside their boundary. He looked upon the turnpike system as a necessary evil; it ought not to be perpetuated in new legislation, unless it were really necessary. It had been said that this Bill was not intended to be a permanent measure. In that case, the whole question would, doubtless, have to be re-considered. It would be far better not to encumber this Bill with a principle totally different from that which the Turnpike Committee this year had recommended, and which constituted the backbone of the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexpressed a hope that the Committee would be guided by the useful observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Egerton), and would not be inclined to insert this clause in the Bill. It certainly would not be a proper thing that the county authority under the Bill—namely, the county magistrates—should have it in their power to recommend, or that the Local Government Board, on their recommendation, should establish turnpike toll-gates on county roads. The Committee would, therefore, do well to leave the matter open for future consideration. He was satisfied that the institution of tolls, under such a clause as this, would not be acceptable to the country generally; at all events, it required a much stronger and more representative body to deal with the question than that which was proposed.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that the Government could not be expected to give any satisfaction to the country unless they took advantage of every facility which they might properly use, to effect
  1158
  a permanent arrangement with regard to this question. So far from being settled, there would hereafter be a renewal of the difficulty. In the district which he represented, there was very little interest felt in the Eastern Question compared with this; for, whereas one person appeared concerned about the Eastern Question, ten persons inquired respecting the question of highways.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONbelieved, if this or some such clause were not adopted, the Bill would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. There were cases which could not be met, except by an arrangement similar to that for Glasgow, which had been introduced in the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill.
  MR. PELL,who regretted the lateness of the hour at which so important a question as this was being discussed, urged the Committee not to forget the very large reduction which would take place, from the abolition of tolls, in the amount of revenue applied to the maintenance of the roads of the Kingdom. He knew of no substitute being provided to meet the deficiency of income. The principle of charging for the maintenance of roads, as laid down in this clause, he considered a sound one—namely, that the people who used them should contribute towards their support. It would be difficult to substitute a better principle than that. The word "toll" had an objectionable sound, and he could well understand the Government hesitating to impose any provision in the shape of toll; but still there was nothing in the Bill to remedy the evil arising from a serious diminution of the revenue obtainable from tolls on highways. A new and increasing charge levied upon the body of ratepayers generally did not supply the necessary remedy. He could not understand why this clause should not be accepted, when the system adopted in South Wales had given so much satisfaction. He could not conceive that any fairer principle could be adopted than placing the tolls on a road in such a way as to catch the general traffic; and, therefore, if his hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) went to a division, he would have the greatest satisfaction in voting with him.
  MR. CLARE READhoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would go to

  1159
  a division, if for no other purpose than to see what amount of support he got from Members on that side. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) as to the meaning he attached to the Report of the Turnpikes Discontinuance Committee, last year; because he thought it did refer to tolls. The noble Lord (Lord George Cavendish), the Chairman of the Committee—who, it was believed, framed the clause of the Report in question—knew very well what was in his own mind at the time. Certainly, when he (Mr. Clare Read) read the clause, he thought it indicated tolls. To take the county money, and to say that they were going to subsidise a certain road, did not mean that they were going to make the people, who used the road, pay for doing so. There was a main thoroughfare between two great towns, neither of which contributed to a county rate. The only course to adopt in such a case was to make a toll-gate on the road.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHagreed with an hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Egerton) in the remark that the Turnpikes Committee had never contemplated keeping up the toll system; but they thought some compensation might be made, in regard to two large towns, between which a main road ran. The Turnpikes Committee was appointed some 10 years ago for the purpose of getting rid of toll; but the effect had been, in some instances, to suggest a plan like that to which he had just alluded. Great injustice existed under the toll system, when a miller who lived on one side of the gate altogether escaped from payment, while another living on the opposite side had to pay toll every time he passed along the road. His own feeling about this Bill was that, when it got into operation, a great many matters would require to be remedied in order to make the measure work well. The Government would then have to introduce an amending Bill, for adjusting inequalities and redressing grievances. He took that opportunity of saying that since giving Notice of a Clause to make the Highways Act compulsory, he had consulted several gentlemen on the subject; and, acting on their advice, he had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to proceed with the proposition at that late period of the Session. He,
  1160
  therefore, preferred to see first how the Bill would work. He feared it would be very difficult to work in those innumerable small townships, where the county authority would have to look after so many small affairs. He hoped the clause now under the consideration of the Committee would not be pressed.
  MR. J. R. YORKEdeclared his determination to go to a division. He assured the Committee that the clause was not intended to be compulsory; and its object was to enable a county authority, after there had been due inquiry, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to put up tolls in exceptional cases. That was different from re-introducing objectionable turnpikes, with all the irregularities of the old system. He was assuming that the county authority was endowed with an average amount of common sense, and would be guided by the exceptional character of the localities under their control. The state of things in South Wales might be fairly taken as a guide for legislation on this subject. It had given considerable satisfaction for the last 40 years, and the plan was similar to the one proposed in this clause. The chief difference was that in Wales they began with turnpikes, and then, where the tolls were insufficient, supplemented them with contributions from the county rate. His plan would be virtually the same, only the order would be reversed. It began with the county rate, and where it was inadequate, it would be aided by tolls. Therefore, he thought this arrangement was one which might safely be placed in the hands of the county authority, more especially as he thought an amending Bill would have to be brought in next Session.
  MR. DILLWYN,in reference to the remarks which had been made on turnpikes in South Wales, said, that if the Committee adopted the clause, they would revert to the old system, and not the present one. The old system was an attempt to catch exceptional traffic in certain places. Under the new one, there was no turnpike within six miles of another. The system was a uniform one, and there was no power under it for catching special traffic. The clause seemed to him to be going back to a very vicious system.
  MR. PELLpointed out that the hon. Member who had just sat down had

  1161
  overlooked a very important part of the clause—namely, that the whole thing was to be done after due inquiry instituted by the intelligent and, he might say, the beneficent members of the Local Government Board, who had charge of the administration of the Poor Laws. Could the Committee suppose for a moment that the Head of that Department would wish to put a toll-gate in the wrong place? The clause would not have any harassing effect.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 70: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 203.)
  MR. DILLWYN MR. DILLWYN moved that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. This Bill had been under the consideration of the Committee at the Morning Sitting, and the almost unprecedented course had been adopted of bringing it on again in the evening. It was now a quarter to 2 o'clock, and he protested against their going on with another debate. They had already been engaged in an important discussion that evening. He never remembered a Bill having been pressed forward with so much pertinacity, when there were serious Amendments to be considered. It was hardly reasonable for the Committee to go on any longer; and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. SOLATER-BOOTHrepudiated the assertion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the Government had pressed the Bill with pertinacity. With regard to the Motion for Progress, he hoped the Committee would consent to sit for another half-hour, in which time the Bill might be completed.
  MR. DILLWYNdisclaimed any intention of making any charge against the Government; but simply wished to imply that it was sharp practice, at the best, to push the Bill on in this way. [Withdraw!]
  MAJOR O'GORMANhoped the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) would not withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
  1162
  If the hon. Gentleman did withdraw, he would move to report Progress himself.
  THE CHAIRMANinquired whether the hon. Member for Swansea wished to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress?
  MR. DILLWYNreplied that he did not.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT (1875)

  AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Sir WILFRID LAWSON, Mr. P. A. TAYLOR, and Mr. WHITWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill252.]

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to further amend the Acts relating to the raising of Money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]

  CORRIB (GALWAY) RIVER BILL.
  Mr. DAVID PLUNKET, Mr. KING-HARMAN, and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNAnominated Members of the Select Committee on the Corrib (Galway) River Bill.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 236 be suspended in the case of the said Bill, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed upon Friday next.—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Charitable Trusts* (150); Commutation of Tithes* (151).
Second Reading—Innkeepers (136).
Committee—Public Health (Ireland) (133).
Committee—Report—Statute Law Revision* (114); Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, Amendment* (139).
Third Reading—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration (Consolidated)* (125); Telegraphs* (141); Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment* (145); Local Government Provisional Orders (A bergavenny Union, &c.)* (116); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, Amendment* (124), and passed.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON VENTION WITH TURKEY—QUESTIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would like to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Convention executed between this country and Turkey had been communicated to the other Powers, either collectively or separately?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreplied, that the Government had not yet received any official report of the Convention having been formally communicated to the other Powers at Berlin.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, if the noble Duke could state whether it had been unofficially communicated?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that at that moment he could not charge his memory upon the point. He was not prepared to answer the Question.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)

(NO. 133.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clauses 1 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT, in moving the addition to the clause of words providing better ventilation and supply of pure air to hospitals, and for providing recreation grounds for convalescent patients, explained, that in Dublin some of the hospitals—especially the group known as the House of Industry Hospitals—were surrounded by houses which were a great nuisance, and very detrimental to the health of the inmates of those hospitals; but it was impossible for the sanitary authorities to deal with the nuisance without some statutory power, and it was to that end that he moved this Amendment.
Amendment moved, to add, at end of clause, these words—
"or for the purposes of enlarging or re-building, or more effectually isolating and ensuring the free circulation of pure air in and around any public hospital or hospitals for the reception of cases of disease or injury, and especially of disease among the poor, and for the providing of adequate recreation grounds for the sick and injured poor while under treatment in such hospital or hospitals during the period of their convalescence from such disease or injury."
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONregretted that he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, who, he thought, would see upon consideration that it would not be right to insert such a provision in this Bill. The noble Viscount proposed to give to the sanitary authorities power to take by compulsion land surrounding hospitals, over which those authorities had no control. The hospitals were supported by voluntary contributions. They were not, therefore, the property of the sanitary authorities, who, indeed, had nothing whatever to do with them. If the Amendment were agreed to, it might happen that a sanitary authority would acquire land round a hospital, that the hospital, becoming no longer available for the purpose for which it was originally intended, might be taken away, and that then the sanitary
1052
authority would hold land acquired by compulsion for no purpose whatever. It was quite obvious, unless the sanitary authority was also to have power over the hospitals, they must not have the power which the noble Viscount proposed to give them. They were not entitled or permitted to contribute towards the support of the hospitals, and, therefore, still less ought they to be allowed to acquire land outside them. Hence, he was compelled to oppose the Amendment.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

INNKEEPERS BILL—(No. 136.)
(The Lord Henniker.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HENNIKER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not bring it forward in his official capacity, and it was not a Government measure; but it had passed through the other House of Parliament without opposition. The Attorney General had given some consideration to the matter, and allowed him to say that he did not consider the Bill, or anything in it, objectionable. The facts of the case were these—that under the existing law, as declared in a decision of the High Court of Justice in January last in the case of Mullilan v. Florence, an innkeeper or hotel-keeper might retain property which had been left by a defaulting customer, but could not sell it. For instance, if a horse were left with an innkeeper, it might cost him a great deal for its keep, and he could not recoup himself by selling it. Railway Companies were empowered by their bye-laws to act in a very different manner with property left in their charge, and even with articles found in their carriages. The object of the present Bill was simply to do an act of bare justice, and to place the law on a more satisfactory footing. The provisions of the Bill were contained in one clause, which set forth that an hotel or innkeeper should have

1053
the right to sell goods or animals left in his house or on his premises, where the owner was indebted to him; but no sale could take place until six weeks after the property had been so left—the surplus, after the debt and expenses had been met, to be paid on demand to the owner. It was also provided that no sale should take place until a description of the property, with a notice of the intended sale, had been advertised in one London and one country newspaper at least one month before the time of sale. He believed the safeguards in the Bill were ample, and he asked their Lordships to give it a second reading.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 150.)
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.