Sitting of 25 February 1879

Preamble
MINUTES.—SELECT COMMITTEE—Public Accounts, Other Members nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) —Second Reading— Tipton Local Board *; Leadenhall Market and Improvements.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Parliamentary Franchise*; Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment*.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LEADENHALL MARKET AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.—(By Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was very much astonished at the course which had been taken with regard to this Bill. It was a Bill of considerable bulk and importance; but the House was left to gather its character from a perusal of the Bill itself, and hon. Members were well aware that as Private Bills were not circulated, hardly anybody was ever in a position to say for himself what was the nature of a Private Bill brought before the House. As a general rule, when they had a debate on a Bill of this sort they had a speech to explain its objects, or someone made a statement as to the nature of its provisions on moving the second reading. On this occasion they had had nothing of the kind, and the House was left to derive its notions as to what the Bill
    1730
    was from a perusal of the Bill itself, which, in regard to Private Bills, was a very difficult matter indeed. Now, it appeared that the City of London had lately appointed a new Remembrancer, and he believed that one of the duties of the Remembrancer was to jog the memory of hon. Members of that House in regard to Bills in which the City was interested, and to inform them of the character of each measure. He had received a statement that morning signed by the Remembrancer, but it was a statement of the baldest possible character. It merely stated that the Bill was coming before the House, and went on to say—
    "The object of the Bill is the establishment of a new market, in lieu of the ancient Leadenhall Market, and the improvement of the neighbourhood by the formation of new streets."
    No reason whatever was given why the House should pass the Bill, and the House was, therefore, put in the position of being asked to pass a Bill for which not one single word was said, and in regard to which no statement had been made to the House, except the two lines contained in the document of the Remembrancer, that—
    "The object of the Bill was the establishment of a new market, in lieu of the ancient Leadenhall Market, and the improvement of the neighbourhood by the formation of new streets."
    He was glad to see the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) in his place. Last year they discussed very fully in the House the Cattle Bill, and the question was incidentally mooted of the establishment of a market monopoly in London, and the desirability of having new markets in London. Under the monopoly now enjoyed by the Corporation of the City of London, the construction of markets was very much mixed up with the City improvements, and this was done in such a way that it was impossible to gather from the figures laid before the House what was the profit or loss to the City upon their markets. The City contended that they lost money on the whole by the markets; but, on the other hand, it was contended that they made very large sums of money by their markets, but appeared to lose, because they mixed up the expenditure on markets with that incurred in the formation of new streets, which was not an expenditure of a remunerative kind. He

    1731
    thought, therefore, that a statement to clear up this matter ought to have been made in moving the second reading of the present Bill, seeing that one of its objects was the formation of new streets. It appeared to him that if the Bill passed large tolls would be levied in Leaden-hall Market at the expense of the consumer, which would be wasted or spent, as the case might be, in the formation of new streets, and the result would be that on the whole a loss would be shown upon the market, instead of what ought to be indicated as a clear gain. He was informed that the Bill did not come before the House with anything like the unanimous support of the Corporation itself. Quite apart from the question of the monopoly of markets possessed by the Corporation, he believed there was considerable opposition in the City itself to this particular Bill. The old Leadenhall Market had nearly died out. It was almost extinct, and had been replaced by a large number of very flourishing shops. The market itself, as a market, was, however, very nearly dead. The object of the present Bill was to revive a bygone state of things, and to create a new Leadenhall Market. It put down the 40 or 50 shops by which the old market had been replaced. With regard to the markets generally, the City monopoly had this result—that it produced a concentration of markets, all the markets of the Metropolis being either in the City or close to the borders of the City. He contended that this concentration of markets was a bad thing for the consumer. It caused a large amount of food to be brought into one place. Owing to the great size of London, it had to be carried a long way in order to get to where it was to be for the second time sold. The result of the concentration caused by the monopoly was that a large amount of food was kept so long that it became unfit for human food. If they were to have markets—and there was a doubt whether the market system was on the whole advantageous for London—they ought to be more scattered, and not concentrated in the City or close to it. In this case the City, by this Bill, were proposing to carry on a competition against their own market, because they had already one market in another locality in which they sold the same kind of goods which would be sold at the new Leadenhall Mar-
    1732
    ket. The competing market also was not at a very great distance from the proposed market. He believed it was the competition with their own market which had given rise to the great opposition which the Bill met with in the City; but he would not enter into that question, because he saw several hon. Members in their places in the House who were Aldermen of the City, and who would be better able to state what the facts of the case were. He had no desire at present to go into the matter at any greater length, because he felt it was inconvenient that the Public Business of the House should be postponed by too long a discussion upon a Private Bill. His only object in moving the rejection of the Bill was to elicit the opinion of those who had more acquaintance with the subject and all its details. He would only make once more the remark with which he set out, that the House was asked to read the Bill a second time without one word having been said or printed and sent to hon. Members to explain and support its provisions. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, this was a very small Bill on which to found an attack upon the City of London. The Bill dealt with a very ancient market—a market established in the reign of Edward IV., and re-built nearly 150 years ago—in the year 1730. The Corporation of the City of London, having observed that Leadenhall Market was rapidly falling into a state of delapidation, thought that the time had arrived when the old market should be replaced by a new one better adapted to satisfy the wants of the people, and more accessible to the public. The Corporation proposed that this should be done at their own expense, and they asked in the Bill for the usual compulsory powers of purchase. That simply was the object of this Bill; but there was another matter included in it—the opening out of

    1733
    new streets. That question had been touched upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and if the hon. Member would look at the plans, which had been published by authority, he thought that the hon. Member would say that the new street, which it was proposed to run from Leadenhall Street to Fenchurch Street, would be a very great improvement, and would afford a very considerable relief to the traffic in that part of the City. If this had been a Bill brought forward by any other municipality than that of the City of London, he did not think that any hon. Member would have risen in his place to move the rejection of the Bill—the ordinary courtesy would have been extended to the promoters of the Bill of allowing them to go before a Private Bill Committee up-stairs, that they might have an opportunity of stating their case. But because the Bill was introduced by the Corporation of the City of London, the hon. Member for Chelsea, who entertained a great dislike to the City—as he did, indeed, to most of the useful institutions of his country—got up in his place and moved the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had referred to the monopoly of the City with regard to its being the market authority within a radius of seven miles round St. Paul's. No doubt it was so; but did the hon. Member want to erect a market in Chelsea? If he did not, he (Mr. Charley) did not see why the hon. Member should come down to the House to oppose the present Bill. It was simply a dog-in-the-manger policy. The hon. Member did not want a market for himself or for his constituents, and yet he objected to the citizens of London enjoying the benefits which this Bill would confer upon them. This was not a new market at all, but one which had existed from time immemorial. He trusted the House would reject the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and consent to read the Bill a second time.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKremarked that, at all events, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) could not say that he (Sir Andrew Lusk) had no interest in the City of London. If he thought that the City had done what was right and proper in the case, he should not have risen to oppose the Bill. He need not remind those Mem-
    1734
    bers of the House who were interested in the matter that some 18 or 20 years ago, after the Cattle Market was moved up to Copenhagen Fields, several gentlemen, and among them Mr. Charles Pearson, conceived the idea of having the Metropolitan Railway made, and of moving Newgate Market and Leadenhall Market, and of constructing a new market on the site of the old Smithfield Cattle Market. That project, in the end, was carried out, and the City went to the expense of building a splendid new dead-meat market there, and in that market, by the authority of the House, Leadenhall Market and Newgate Market were included. The new market at Smithfield had been of great benefit to everyone who was engaged in the City. At the present moment, they were able to get along Leadenhall Street without having 50 or 100 butchers' carts standing in the street. It appeared to him somewhat singular that the same men who carried out this great improvement, so far as the City was concerned, should now desire to revive the old market in Leadenhall Street. It was of no use talking about the City doing this at their own expense. No doubt, they were going to spend £100,000 in reviving the old market; but it would be necessary to levy tolls in the market, and it would require a good many tolls to make up interest on that sum. These were really the facts of the case. Leadenhall Market at present was not a market, but a place where a great many stolen dogs were sold, and stolen cats, stolen partridges' eggs, stolen pheasants' eggs, and foxes, and things of that kind. Perhaps hon. Members would appreciate the advantages of that class of trade. He was not one of "our old Nobility." He did not count his acres by tens of thousands; but he could say this, and he believed he would be confirmed in what he stated, for it was a very important fact—that it was a great trouble and a great expense to produce food in this country—beef, mutton, and corn—for the people. And many hon. Members must be astonished when they looked at the enormous disparity between the amount they received for what they sold, and the sum they paid when they bought in London. He attributed part of this result to the concentration of markets in one place, which had the effect of raising up

    1735
    third and fourth and fifth men between the seller and the buyer. He did not think it was desirable for the benefit of those who bought and sold to concentrate the number of markets they now possessed. All the meat went to Smith-field, and all the fish to Billingsgate. In the case of the latter market, there was a great difficulty in getting there. Three-fourths of the people who wanted to go there could not get into the market. The streets leading to the market were constantly blocked up, and it was impossible to get access to Billingsgate. The consequence was that, in some way or other, more than 400 tons of fish every year were destroyed, because it could not get out of the market in time to be of use to the public. It was very questionable, therefore, whether it was desirable to revive the market in Leadenhall Street. He should like to know where the advantages were to be found? He spoke as a merchant in London. He and other merchants having business in the City wanted to get to their offices, and did not want to have the streets blocked up again, as was the case in times past. They had been endeavouring to set the traffic in the City free by the aid of the Metropolitan Railway, and other means. He objected, therefore, to the concentration of the markets of the Metropolis in the City where they were not wanted. There was nobody there to buy, and they had already a splendid market elsewhere. Therefore, in the name of the merchants of London, and of those who had business to carry on in the City, and wanted to get out and in, he asked the House not to concede to the Corporation permission to start another great market in the centre of the City. It certainly could not be recommended from a sanitary point of view; because, wherever they had a market of that kind, they got a great deal more dirt than was desirable. For these reasons, he appealed to the House to throw the Bill out, or, at any rate, to send it to a Select Committee to ascertain whether it would be for the benefit of the Metropolis generally to establish another market as proposed.
    SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSpointed out that the request of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) was all that the promoters of the Bill asked— namely, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee to ascertain whether
    1736
    it was a suitable Bill to pass or not. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said, that no particular reasons had been circulated for the passing of the Bill; but it was by no means the rule that such reasons should be circulated. It was not uncommon to do so; but in the case of the majority of Private Bills he believed it was not the practice. The Bill was brought into the House, not on the authority of individuals or of private speculators, but upon the authority and credit of the Corporation of London. And as to the Corporation not having been unanimous in its favour, it was hardly necessary to remind the House that the Corporation was unanimous on very few subjects. But what Corporation was? He could not help telling the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), who had just spoken, knew very well that the maintenance of Leadenhall Market was a concession on the part of the Corporation of London to the feeling of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Indeed, there was a Petition, signed by upwards of 10,000 persons, praying that this very ancient market should be maintained in their midst. But the Corporation of London could not keep Leadenhall Market in its present condition. It had fallen into decay, in a certain sense, in its trade and in its buildings, and in all the accessories of a market it was absolutely deficient. There was, as had already been pointed out, no proper access to it. No doubt, his hon. Friend (Sir Andrew Lusk) would be disturbed in coming to and going from business if there was no better access to the market than existed now; but the object of the Bill was to do that which, however, was complained of by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—namely, to carry out street improvements at the same time that the market was made. The hon. Member for Chelsea made it a matter of complaint against the Corporation that whenever they made a market they made street improvements in order to give a better access to it. The hon. Member for Chelsea also complained of the market monopoly enjoyed by the City of London. Now, if there was one duty which more than another imposed a primary obligation upon a united municipality, it was that of making provision

    1737
    for markets for the use of such united municipality. It was a duty of every municipality to take charge of that matter so far as it could, and in London, with a population of 4,000,000 of persons at stake, it was the imperative duty of the Corporation to take the lead. At the same time, it was a matter of great difficulty to provide markets to which the people would resort. Lady Burdett Coutts spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in establishing the Columbia Market. The great object which Lady Burdett Coutts had was to provide accommodation for the buyer. She did everything that could be done to make that market a success; but she did it all in vain. Then, again, did not the City take away one of the greatest scandals that existed in London before most hon. Members were born—the Fleet Lane Market—which was situated opposite a ditch, and build a beautiful market in the same neighbourhood—the Farringdon Market? But it had been a dead failure, and the new market had never taken root at all. Again, in close contiguity with the Great Northern, the North-Western, and the Midland Railways, in an admirable situation, amidst an immense population, a market was established which was intended to supply food cheaply to the public. Upon this new market great efforts were expended and large sums of money spent. An admirable market was built; but no customers would come. He could multiply instances of the same kind. It was by no means easy to plant a market. Let anyone try to plant one at Chelsea. A market in London was the most delicate thing in its constitution that could be imagined. And some which had been in existence for 30 or 40 years were comparatively empty and without profit. The Corporation of London had spent £2,500,000 in markets; and as far as the income of the Corporation was concerned, they were none the better for the markets they had built. They had built them because they considered, and he supposed the House would also consider, that it was one of their primary obligations to do what they could towards performing the daily miracle of feeding 4,000,000 of people with food—meat, fish, and fruit, and all other things necessary. No doubt, the obligation which thus fell upon them was well discharged. Whether it might be done better was another
    1738
    question, but that it was done well at the present moment nobody could doubt. Four hundred tons of fish might be condemned every year, not through the fault of the market, but through a fault which, in many cases, happened before the fish arrived in London at all. All the Corporation asked was that the Bill should be allowed to go to a Select Committee. No doubt, the Corporation were divided about it. It was a competition with their own market; but that was rather in its favour than against it. It showed that they wore willing to allow competition with their own market, if a demand was made for it by a sufficient number of their constituents, who felt that a local market would be of advantage to them. His hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Finsbury said it was a great mistake to bring all the markets to one point and to pass a Bill with that object. But the arguments of his hon. Friends would not hold water at all. If the Bill went before a Select Committee, and if it then turned out that there was no reason why it should be passed into law, the House might depend upon it that it would not be passed into law. But, at any rate, it ought to be read a second time; and if the Select Committee thought it was a proper measure to become law, they would be bound to pass it.
    MR. W. H. JAMESthought the Corporation of London would have done wisely, and have shown a little more worldly wisdom, if they had taken the advice once given by a distinguished statesman, who said—"Why cannot you let it alone." It would be within the recollection of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) that the whole of this subject of markets was raised last year in the discussion of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. At that time it was said that it was rather an awkward and undesirable thing that the question should be raised at that particular moment. He thought this movement ought to have been a little longer deferred, and then the Corporation could have come forward boldly and have asked Parliament to support their Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Salford said that it was a very small Bill. Primâ facie he was ready to admit that it was, and that there was a tolerably good case for improving Leadenhall Market if it was ever again to be used

    1739
    as a market. In its present condition, the market was a very dirty and disagreeable place. But if it was a small Bill, it was one that affected a very large question; and he must contend that the present provision for the supply of markets over the whole of the Metropolis was absolutely indefensible. There was not on the Surrey side of London a single market. Walworth and Camberwell were destitute of markets. Then, again, on the North side of London, there were no markets either at Stoke Newington or Hoxton, and nothing was proposed to be done there for providing anything in the shape of market accommodation. No doubt, the present Bill would have slipped through the House unnoticed if it had not been for the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Hon. Members had only had to-day to gather information. He (Mr. James) had inquired in the Library if there was any information to be gathered upon the question of markets. There were very few subjects which some time or other had not been inquired into by that House; but the only information to be obtained on the question of markets was to be found in some little evidence given before a Royal Commission which inquired, in 1854, into the finances and general state of the Corporation. And the evidence taken at that time all tended to show that even then the want of markets in London was greatly felt, and was, indeed, something absolutely deplorable. No Committee of the House of Commons had ever at any time inquired into the subject; and he asked the hon. and learned Member the Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), whether he was prepared to contend for a single moment that the City of London, the population of which was dwindling away every day, and was not more than 75,000 at this moment, was the proper authority to possess the entire market monopoly of this great Metropolis, with a population of 4,000,000 of people? He had no wish to attack the Corporation of London; but he thought he had the right to defend the wants of the Metropolitan ratepayers, who had no good opportunity for expressing their opinion on this or any other question. In the absence of favourable markets, costermongers' carts filled the streets, and distributing their garbage in every direction, were instrumental in placing the thoroughfares in a
    1740
    bad sanitary condition. Sometimes, when unable to sell their wares, they took them home and deposited them in their backyards; and the consequence was that many of the homes of the poor were placed in a very unsatisfactory sanitary condition. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the present Bill, the effect of which was that after it had been read a second time it should be sent to a Select Committee nominated by the Whole House. At the time the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill of 1869 was brought in by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take away the monopoly now enjoyed by the Corporation of the City of London, unless they complied with and fulfilled certain conditions which were considered necessary in the interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. As the Corporation had not complied with and fulfilled those conditions, it was only a reasonable request that the House should now be asked to refrain from passing this Bill, which dealt with a small part of the larger question, until the whole matter had been inquired into by a Select Committee. If this proposition were not accepted, he should feel it his duty to offer an uncompromising opposition to the second reading of the Bill. He must confess that from time to time these ancient and antiquated privileges possessed by the Corporation required revision. The whole thing ought to be gone into entirely, and made the subject of a full and complete investigation. If the Corporation objected to inquiry, the House could only come to one conclusion—namely, that they were afraid of giving a full explanation, because they knew perfectly well what the nature of the exposé would be, and that, when weighed in the balance, they would be found wanting.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTON, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, he could assure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) that the Corporation of the City at all times courted inquiry, and nothing would please them more than to answer any queries addressed to them by a Select Committee or any inquiry which the House might be pleased to make. With regard to the Bill now before the House, it was pretty well known that the market at Leaden-

    1741
    hall was one of the most ancient markets in the City. The land on which it was built was the property of the City of London, and the Corporation, in their present Bill, simply asked the House to allow them to improve that market and the approaches thereto. The City had been moved to take this action by one of the largest, most influential, and most honestly signed Petitions ever presented to the Corporation of the City of London. It contained upwards of 7,000 signatures, all duly certified with name and address. It was one of the most useful markets in London, and, situated as it was on the borders of Gracechurch Street, it was easily approached both from East and West, and North and South. Then, again, the market was required by City men themselves, who lived mostly in the suburbs, and required to take their provisions home with them. In the market every necessity could be obtained, and he failed to see what advantage would be derived from destroying this very useful market. He certainly hoped that the House would not listen to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and let it go forth to the City that the markets, which had always been well conducted, and had always given satisfaction to those who frequented them, were no longer required. He trusted that the House would reject the Amendment and read the Bill a second time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that if this Bill came up from any Corporation in the Provinces, he did not suppose that the House would waste any time in its discussion. It seemed to him to be a very reasonable Bill, so far as it took power to improve a very ancient market. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down described the market of Leadenhall as one of the oldest in London; but the whole difficulty in the case arose from the fact that the market authority of the Metropolis was not the municipality of the whole of the Metropolis, but the municipality of only a small part of it. His hon. Friend behind him the learned Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), in his eloquent pleading for the City, told them there was no greater duty a municipality could perform than to look after the markets. That was perfectly true, and he did not for a moment deny it. But, in this case, what were the condi-
    1742
    tions? It was proposed that the Corporation, which represented some 200,000, or even a much less number of the inhabitants of the City, should provide markets for the 4,000,000 which formed the whole population of the Metropolis. They could not now go into the question whether they ought or ought not to intrust this special power of providing markets to the City of London. The power did exist at the present moment, and it was proposed now, to some extent, practically to extend it. One great argument which had been used by the City when fresh markets had been projected was that they had already spent a great deal of money upon markets, and that there ought to be no competition. At the present moment, however, some little difference of opinion seemed to exist among the Corporation as to the propriety of having a competition among themselves. And by the Bill now before the House, he understood it was so proposed to alter Leadenhall Market as to make it a market of competition with the existing markets. He thought if they did that they afforded a very fair ground for the rest of the inhabitants of the Metropolis to say that their interests ought to be thoroughly considered when the Bill got into Committee, and that they ought to have a full opportunity of opening the whole of the Market Question. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes) would correct him if he was wrong; but his impression was that if this Bill went upstairs without any special direction, but simply as an ordinary Private Bill, the consumers in the Metropolis would not have a locus standi before the Committee. He imagined that the Metropolitan Board of Works would have a locus standi on account of their Building Acts which gave them power over the erection of buildings in all parts of the Metropolis, even including the City of London. But he did think that when they were proposing to establish a fresh dead-meat market, which was to be not merely for the sale of meat to consumers in the City, but for the sale of meat to consumers outside the City, that the consumers in all parts of London should have a locus standi. At the same time, he did not believe they could have that locus standi unless the Bill was referred

    1743
    to a Select Committee, nominated by the Whole House in the manner proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). He did not suppose that there would be any real objection to that proposal. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Cotton), who was well acquainted with the feeling of the Corporation of London, said there was nothing the authorities of the City would court more than an inquiry into the matter. If they really desired to have the whole question fairly sifted in the interests of the consumers, he could not help thinking there would be no real objection to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not persist in his opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time with the view of having it referred to a Select Committee nominated by the Whole House.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that if this was an attempt to construct an absolutely fresh market outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation of London who were the promoters of the Bill, it was possible the objections which had been raised to it by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), might have considerable force and weight with the House. In such a ease—he did not say that he agreed with the proposal—it might fairly be argued that if such an attempt were made by the City to extend the number of their markets, the time had come when they should consider generally the question whether the old Charter granted to the City of London constituting them the sole market authority of the Metropolis, was one which ought not in some way to be altered. But he would remind the House that in this instance they were not dealing at all with any such creation of a fresh market All he understood from this Bill was that the City asked within their own limits and under their own Charter to provide, instead of a market which at present was inadequate for the wants of the locality, a better market on the same site—carrying on the history of the market from the past, only under improved conditions.
    1744
    Such being the simple object of the Bill, it rendered it difficult, he thought, for the House to refuse its assent to the second reading. They knew perfectly well that the Bill would be submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, where, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said, the Metropolitan Board of Works would have a locus standi, and where the owners of property in the neighbourhood who objected to it would also have a right to be heard. But the question, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, of the consumer's interest, would arise simply on the creation of a fresh market outside the limits of the existing one, and not in the continuing of a market which existed at the present moment, and which would be found of great convenience to the locality in which it existed. Although he was not in a position to speak with the same authority as hon. Members for the City upon this matter, he believed that, in connection with another market in the City—Billingsgate Market—there were people who had business in Leaden-hall Market, and therefore any idea of satisfying the wants of the traders, or customers who had for so long a period been accustomed to the market in Leadenhall Street, would not be met by sending them to the market in Smithfield, which the City held as another outlet. He confessed that he was considerably surprised at the arguments adduced by his hon. Friend the Alderman who represented the borough of Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk). The hon. Baronet had endeavoured to prove to the House the disadvantages of centralizing all the traders in one market, and had then asked the House to refuse the continuance of the second market in Leaden-hall Street. The two things did not seem to him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to be consistent, so far as the interests of the consumers in the Metropolis were concerned. He thought the whole of the arguments they had heard upon the Bill had simply been addressed to the general question which ought to be raised at some other time, and which certainly did not apply to the continuance of Leadenhall Market, which had been, and would be, under the proposed arrangement, a useful addition to the market purposes of the Metropolis itself.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the district affected by the Bill occupied a very large portion of the ward which he represented in the Corporation of the City of London. He trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time on account principally of the very great improvements which it would effect in the City itself. It would, among other things, enable the old Hide Market in Leadenhall Street to be properly utilized, and a new street would be carried from Leadenhall Street to Fenchurch Street, which would greatly facilitate the traffic in that part of the City. There was a very strong feeling in the district in which the market was situated that the market itself ought not to be abolished, and an important Petition signed by a very large number of persons had been presented to the House, praying that the market should be continued. The Bill now before the House was in reality a compromise. The City had consented, at the request of a very large number of persons, to continue the market. But what was the market? There was in reality nothing that could be called a market. There were two wholesale dealers, a few small shops, and a variety of dealers in foxes, dogs, cats, rabbits, and all sorts of animals; but to call it a market from which was distributed any considerable portion of the food of the Metropolis was a folly and absurdity. It never could be made a large market in its present condition, for this reason. It was right in the centre of a block of houses, and at the present time it could not be got at except through a few narrow courts. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) asked why they should not leave things alone? Now, that was the very thing they ought not to do. At the present moment, it was an abomination and not a market at all, and it was so situated that it could not be carried on as a market. He hoped that the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, and leave it to a Committee upstairs to determine whether it would be an improvement to make the new street and re-constitute the market, or whether it would be an improvement to be without any market at all.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him a question in regard to the locus standi of the
    1746
    citizens of the Metropolis if the Bill went before a Committee upstairs in the ordinary way. He was not aware that the consumers in this case would have any more locus standi than they would have in any other case. Their opposition was precisely the same as that of the consumers in Liverpool or Manchester, supposing the Bill had been introduced by the Corporation of Liverpool or Manchester in regard to the markets already existing in those towns. He hoped that the discussion, which had no doubt been a useful one, would not end in a division; because, although the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had shown that there was a great deal of interest felt out-of-doors with regard to the monopoly possessed by the Corporation of London in regulating the markets of the Metropolis, it appeared to him (Mr. Raikes) that this was hardly an occasion, nor did the present Bill afford the most fitting opportunity, for conducting an inquiry into that subject. The Corporation of London, by this Bill, asked for no power to make any new market, or to make or regulate any market beyond the limits of the City itself. If, therefore, in any case the promoters of a Bill ought to be allowed to proceed and to bring forward their Bill in the ordinary course of procedure, adopting the usual mode of dealing with questions which formed the subject of Private Bills, this was a case of that nature. If it were intended by this Bill to establish a new market in the borough of Chelsea, or if it were a proposition which involved in any way the opening of new markets on the Southern side of the river, where he had every reason to believe market accommodation was greatly required, such a proposal would certainly have afforded a fair opportunity for instituting such an inquiry as that suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). But on this occasion the Corporation of London, as the promoters of the Bill, were merely asking to be allowed to improve an already existing market, which was altogether unfit for the purposes for which it was intended. It was notorious that the present market at Leadenhall was inconvenient and difficult of access. The Corporation of

    1747
    the City proposed as part of the present Bill to construct a new street, and he believed that such a street would be a very great convenience to that part of London. Under all the circumstances, it did appear to him that it would be hard upon the Corporation of London that they should be placed in the trying position of attempting to carry out improvements that were essentially required, and, at the same time, that their action should be hampered by requiring them to enter into a long and troublesome inquiry as to the nature and advantages of the general powers which they possessed by Statute. He trusted that under these circumstances the House would allow the Bill to follow the ordinary course, and be sent, not to a special Committee, but to an ordinary Committee, who would have full power to go into all the details of the matter in the ordinary way. He might, perhaps, be allowed to add in regard to the question which had been raised with respect to the costs being defrayed by heavy tolls, which would ultimately come out of the pockets of the consumers, that that was a matter which an ordinary Private Bill Committee had full power to investigate, and it would be their duty to see that no injustice was done by the imposition of any undue charge. He hoped that, under all these circumstances, the House would now consent to read the Bill a second time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he proposed to accept the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and allow the division to be taken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) to refer the Bill to a Committee nominated by the Whole House, after it should have been read a second time. He, therefore, begged to withdraw the Amendment which he had submitted to the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    MR. W. H. JAMES MR. W. H. JAMES moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, to be nominated by the Whole House.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in seconding the Motion, said, he had only one remark to make, and he wished to
    1748
    make it in reply to an observation which had fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). The Chairman of Committees spoke of the consumers in London being in the same position as those in other towns. That was hardly the case. In other towns they were represented by the Corporation, but in London they were not.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."—(Mr. James.)
    SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSremarked that the Bill was promoted under the authority of the Corporation of London, and the nature of the measure had already been fully stated. It was not to establish a new market, but simply to improve an old and existing one, and a more unfair occasion for raising any general question of the kind which had been suggested, and of which it must be remembered the Corporation had had no notice, could not be conceived. The whole object of the Bill was merely to re-construct a tumble-down market, and give a better access to it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 137: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
    Bill committed.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE REV. H. J. DODWELL. —QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the statements that have appeared in the medical newspapers, respecting the mental condition of the Rev. H. J. Dodwell, who is now confined as a criminal lunatic; and, if it would be safe to order his release?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I wish that I could give a favourable answer to this Question; but I am afraid it is not in my power to do so. I had this gentleman examined on the 31st of May by one medical officer, who certainly decided that he was insane. He was again examined in June by two other medical officers, when the same answer was returned. In consequence of a report which appeared by Dr. Winn

  1749
  and Dr. Forbes Winslow, I thought it better that he should be examined again by two perfectly independent gentlemen. I wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners asking thorn to name two gentlemen to undertake such an inquiry. They did so, and those gentlemen examined him on the 18th of September, and their opinion was that he was decidedly insane, and that it would be unsafe to liberate him. I gave instructions that information should be sent to me of any improvement in his condition; but I am sorry to say that I have received no report.

  PAROCHIAL BOARD (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION. —QUESTION.
  MR. HIBBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, to carry out the recommendations of last years' Select Committee repeating the election of Guardians of the Poor in England and Ireland, and of Parochial Boards in Scotland?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, a Poor Law Board Amendment Bill had been prepared which would deal, among other things, with the more important recommendations of last year's Select Committee respecting the election of Guardians of the Poor in England and Ireland; but he could not say anything about the Parochial Boards in Scotland. He hoped the Bill would be introduced by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board as soon as the state of Public Business would permit.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— PRESBYTERIAN AND WESLEYAN CHAPLAINS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. COWANasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement as to sending Catholic Chaplains with the troops to South Africa, Whether, as there are now or will shortly be three Scotch regiments out there, he will consider the propriety of sending out Presbyterian Chaplains to be with some or all of the Scotch regiments?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Yes, Sir; it is intended to send out one Presbyterian chaplain, but we do not intend to send more at present, unless Lord Chelmsford should express a wish that we should do so.
  MR. WADDYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as there are now or will shortly be a large number of Wesleyans in the army in South Africa for whom when in barracks at home and on foreign stations the Wesleyans provide church accommodation and clerical supply without asking for assistance or repayment from the Government, he will consider the propriety of allowing Wesleyan Chaplains to accompany the troops in proportion to the number of declared Wesleyans sent out?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have received a letter from the Wesleyan Foreign Missionary Committee, stating that they had directed four of their missionaries at the Cape to report themselves to the Commanding Officer of the Army against the Zulus. I propose to reply to this letter that, though it is most desirable to limit the number of non-combatants, I should have no objection to instructing Lord Chelmsford to admit as many of their number as he thought desirable, and to give them such opportunities as he might think proper for carrying out their ministrations.

  EMPLOYERS LIABILITY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Bill which has been promised by the Government on the subject of employers liability to compensate their workmen for injuries in certain cases, will be introduced into the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not able, in the present state of Public Business, to name a day; but I hope we shall be prepared to introduce the Bill before Easter.

  NAVY PROMOTION—ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1872.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it has not hitherto been the rule or practice in Her Majesty's Navy to promote sub-lieutenants to the rank of lieutenant at the end of four years service; whether it is intended to alter that rule or practice by extending the period of service; whether such an alteration will not affect the promotion of officers of all grades and their prospects as to the rank upon which they might have to retire;

  1751
  and, whether such alteration is to apply to officers now serving who entered upon service under the hitherto existing rule or practice?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, there was no fixed Regulation which determined the period of service for sublieutenants to obtain their promotion; but latterly it had been the practice to promote them after four years' service. The Order in Council of November, 1872, gave the Admiralty the power to do so, provided the list of sub-lieutenants was above 250. The number was now below that figure, so that promotions could only be made under the provisions of the Order in Council of March, 1870, which provided that until the list of active lieutenants should have been reduced to 600, only one in every four vacancies, caused by retirement and promotion consequent thereon, should be filled, but that vacancies caused by death were to be filled as they arose. He was not in a position at present to say that the Admiralty had any intention of altering the system which prevailed; but he would admit that the slower promotion did very seriously affect sub-lieutenants and other officers.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the guardians of an Union have power to pay for the maintenance of a child sent to an Industrial School upon complaint made by the local authority of a school district not having a School Board; and, if not, how in such case sec. 12 of the Education Act of 1876 can be carried out?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, some doubt has arisen whether the local authority, being a school attendance committee and having sent a child to a certified school, has power, with consent of guardians, to pay for the maintenance of the child. Assuming that they have not the power to pay, the prison authority would in such a case be the disbursing authority. We propose, however, as the point is of some importance, to refer it to such legal authority as will settle the case one way or another.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, Whether, in case the prison authority had the power, the resolution of the guardians or school attendance committee would bind the prison authority?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not answer that Question; but it would be referred to the legal authority.

  EGYPT—DESPATCH OF SHIPS OF WAR.—QUESTION.
  MR. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the statement in "The Times" of yesterday is correct that France has ordered the despatch boat "Renard" to Egypt, and an English ship is going in the same direction; and, if so, whether these vessels have any special or joint mission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is true that an English and French ship have been ordered to Alexandria. The Governments of England and France deem it desirable, in present circumstances, that there should be a ship of each nation in Egyptian waters. No special mission has been given to the commanders of those ships.

  ARMY—THE 24TH REGIMENT— OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended, as reported in the public prints, to send to South Africa six Officers of the Guards and three of the Line to fill up the places vacated by the Officers of the 24th Regiment lately slain in action?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, it is intended to send out the officers to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers, but it is under these circumstances. The draft for the 24th goes out 533 strong; obviously they could not go without officers; but those officers do not belong, nor will they be posted to, the 24th Regiment.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OFFENDING TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. C. BROWNasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, considering the serious consequences to both teachers and schools where the teacher is found guilty by the inspector of certain offences, and that they are put in the black list without power of

  1753
  appeal, he would take into consideration the constitution of some Court of appeal; and, if there is any intention to throw the inspectorate open to Public Elementary School Teachers, many of whom would be well qualified for the position?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the present practice is not for the Inspector to convict, but to send in his report to the Education Department, where the case would be personally investigated by one of the heads of the Department, and the teacher convicted only when, in the opinion of this official, the evidence is conclusive. Teachers are not at present debarred from becoming Inspectors, the Lord President being ready to consider the claims of all persons who, in his opinion, have the qualifications necessary for the proper performance of those duties.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878—MERSEY DOCK AND HARBOUR BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the large and immediate expenditure proposed to be made by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board in providing accommodation to meet the requirements of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of last Session, and whether the approval of the Privy Council has been obtained as regarded the works about to be undertaken, and whether the whole of such works are necessary?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board have applied for and received the sanction of the Lords of the Council to their proposal to erect lairs and slaughterhouses on certain landing places in the port of Liverpool for the reception of foreign animals. No correspondence has taken place in reference to the cost of the proposed erections; but it is believed that the accommodation will not be more than adequate to the requirements of the trade. For some time past the accommodation for landing, lairage, and slaughter of foreign animals in the port has been insufficient.

  MEETING OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, That this House will meet To-morrow at Two of the clock.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MOTIONS.

  BANK DEPOSITS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of deposits in the banks of the United Kingdom, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether a moderate and discriminating scale of Stamp or composition Duties may, with advantage to the interests of the Country and of the Banks, he hereafter applied to all interest-hearing deposits in the Banks of the United Kingdom, and whether a Bill on that subject should he introduced to Parliament at an early date;"
  said: The subject to which I desire to draw the attention of the House to-day is not one forced upon my own mind by the contemplation of those recent financial disasters which may be said to have culminated in, rather than to have commenced with, the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. I feel it due to myself to say this, and to remind the House that in a period of profound repose— when no one dreamt of the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank, and none outside its walls suspected its solvency— on the 16th of May, 1876, I occupied the attention of the House for above an hour in demonstrating, or to the best of my ability in endeavouring to demonstrate, that the system of banking credit which prevailed in the United Kingdom was of a nature which of necessity must produce at irregular but constantly recurring intervals the panics and crises, with the appearance of which most of us are unhappily familiar. I have no intention of going over the same ground in the same terms as those which may be found in Hansard of 1876, because many of the results and conditions which I then predicted as likely to arise have so lately come to pass as to be actually within our present cognizance, and the recency of such occurrences enables me to dispense with all such arguments as were of the nature of foreboding in 1876. My main contentions are that the system of deposit credit which has grown up in the joint-stock banks of the United Kingdom is essentially unscientific and practically unsound, and that the tendency of the evil is to increase and not to cure itself, as some people imagine that such things

  1755
  are likely to do if left to themselves. There are, as I estimate, about £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 sterling of deposits held by the various joint-stock banks of the United Kingdom on which these banks pay interest to the depositors. The great bulk of these deposits is again lent by the banks, and employed by the borrowers in carrying on the trade, manufactures, and other enterprizes of the United Kingdom. If we were not to look beneath the surface, as we are now about to do, I admit that things in ordinary times look natural and sound enough; but when we examine the conditions under which these £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 are borrowed and again lent, we find a state of things singularly unstable, and, as it has always appeared to me, actually dangerous to the interests of the trading community of the Empire. The instability and the danger arise from the three following conditions, which are inherent in the present system:—First, the banks which borrow the £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 at interest undertake to repay the depositor in each case, either on demand or at a very few days' notice. Second, the condition under which the banker borrows the money being to pay interest upon it, he is necessitated to re-lend it at interest to someone else at a somewhat higher rate than that which he himself pays, or to invest it in some security on his own account. Third, there is not a sufficiency of solvent borrowers to take from the banker on discount of trade bills anything approaching the large amount which the banker has to lend; nor can the banker lend what he does lend on terms—as to repayment on notice—as stringent as those to which he has himself submitted. Now, these are the three conditions which constitute, or out of which arises, the unsoundness which needs legislative intervention. I maintain that it is unsound business for any man, whether banker or not, to borrow at interest money which he may be called upon to repay at an earlier date than he can be certain of having the means of repayment, and that which is unsound in principle on a single transaction cannot be sound by being multiplied into a thousand or a million of such transactions. But what the present system amounts to is simply the multiplication of the first unsound transaction
  1756
  by thousands or tens of thousands in reliance on an assumed and unscientific doctrine of chance, that while business is kept going there will be always sufficient coming in, or which may be made to come in, to meet outgoings and repay depositors. I grant that under the normal condition—a fair trade, and a clear political horizon—not only is there no difficulty, but there is a great ease in carrying on the business of the country under the system which prevails; but that very fact adds most seriously to the difficulties which arise in seasons unfavourable to the trade, manufactures, or agriculture of the Empire. People hope that a system which has gone on for many years doing much good may go on for ever doing but little harm. I do not take this view, quite the contrary; but, nevertheless, I say that it is still possible, without any great organic change, without any shock to credit—without any injury to existing interests—nay, with immediate and enormous benefit to those interests, to guard against and obviate the dangers and disasters which, if not guarded against, before very long will, I apprehend, prove inveterate and irremediable. It must not be supposed that the only evil, or even the chief evil, is that which is developed when a bank fails; a tremendous amount of injury is done to the interests of traders by the means which, under the present system, are had recourse to to prevent a bank from failing, and these means or measures become indispensable solely in consequence of what I will describe as the improvident system under which money is borrowed by the banks from their depositors, and the consciousness on the part of bank directors and managers that it is of vital importance to them, and, therefore, a kind of duty under the present system to maintain an appearance of prosperity in adverse times, lest their credit suffer in the minds of those whose moneys they hold, reclaimable with interest on demand, or at a few days' notice. I do not wish to repeat myself in this House; but if hon. Members desire to learn my views as to the origin and growth of the several financial panics of the last half-century, they will find them set out in Hansard's report of my speech in May, 1876. I have nothing to vary, and but little to add to the history there told. What has since happened in Glasgow, South

  1757
  Wales, and elsewhere, is in my opinion only a natural sequel to that history. The frantic efforts of the City of Glasgow Bank for the last 10 years to appear prosperous, originated, no doubt, from the consciousness of the directors that the bank was at the mercy of depositors who might recall their moneys at a few days notice. Even at a period when they may have been solvent, and before their capital was irretrievably lost, this reverse was by no means improbable if they confessed to any impairment. I will, however, treat the City of Glasgow Bank as an exceptional case. I found no argument, and point no moral out of it at present, save to this extent—that it proves the terrible expedients to which directors will have recourse to avoid reducing their dividends. But now the question arises, how are we to deal with a state of credit which has grown up about us, and how are we to deal with the business and interests of institutions of such importance as the joint-stock banks of the United Kingdom? Well, Sir, I think I see the way to do so without doing any violence to the principle involved in the right of private contract, and not only without injury to existing banks, but with great and incalculable advantage to those institutions whose interests I not only do not disregard nor underrate, but desire in every reasonable way to protect. Now, the process whereby the results, which I desire to bring about, may be reached is essentially simple, and it is one quite in accordance with the principles of our present laws of contract and of finance. We all know that a bill of exchange is not a lawful instrument in the United Kingdom, unless it has impressed upon it—or in the case of foreign bills negotiated in this country affixed to it—a stamp denoting a duty paid to the State at the rate of 1s. per cent—that is to say, at the rate of 1s. for each £ 100 of the amount of such bill without regard to whether the currency of the bill is for 10 days or 12 months. Thus a £100 bill pays a 1s. stamp duty, a £500 bill 5s., and so on. There is, however, another system of duty applicable to bills and notes by which the duty is not calculated nor levied upon the amount of each bill or note separately, nor represented by a stamp impressed or affixed. That other system is that which provides that a composition duty
  1758
  shall be levied in lieu of stamp duty on all bank notes in circulation, and on bankers' bills, which are permitted to be issued without any stamp impressed or affixed. The composition duty now known to the law is levied at the rate of 7s. per cent per annum on the average amount of the bank notes or bankers' bills which the bank has in circulation during the year for which the duty is payable. Now, what I recommend being done in the case of interest-bearing deposits is to adopt the principle involved in both systems to meet the varying conditions under which interest-bearing deposits are accepted by bankers. I wish to introduce certainty and forethought into the system of taking deposits. I start with the assumption that if any solvent man, banker or anyone else, borrows money on which he pays or agrees to pay interest, he must, in order to indemnify himself, invest the money in some security, negotiable or otherwise. I next say he should know absolutely when the money he borrows will become payable by him, and he should be prepared to pay it on the day of maturity. I assume that there is a period within which a banker will have time to turn his money—that is to say, to employ it profitably and to repay it without difficulty. I assume such a period to be three months. I assume that the great bulk of the deposits in the banks of the United Kingdom could and would be as well fixed by the depositors at renewable periods of three months as they are now at a few days' notice; but, although I assume this, I am not about to propose that any hard-and-fast line of three months, or any other period should be adopted. I simply propose to make it for the advantage of the depositor, if it be convenient for him to do so, to lodge his money for three monthly periods, renewable by him at his option, and without trouble of any kind. I will now endeavour to explain how all this may be done consistently with those principles of free contract which no hon. Member of this House would more jealously watch over than I would myself. The State has always exercised the right of imposing a tax on contracts in the nature of a stamp duty or a composition duty, in lieu of a stamp impressed or affixed. Ordinary bills of exchange pay a stamp duty at the rate of 1s. per cent, and this duty is

  1759
  quite as high on a bill payable at three days' date as on one drawn for three months. It is the practice of business that the man to whom credit is given by taking his bill, or one for whose accommodation a bill is issued, pays the stamp duty. In the cases of bankers' notes there is no stamp impressed or affixed; but the banker pays a composition duty in lieu of stamp duty on his notes and post bills in circulation, at the rate of 7s. per cent per annum on the average amount he has had in circulation during the year. I mention these facts, and the state of the law in these respects, in order to be able to show as I proceed that the changes which I recommend for adoption are no violation of the principle of freedom of contract, nor any innovation of principle whatsoever. If a banker pays a composition duty at the rate of 7s. per cent per annum on the bank post bills which he draws, payable at seven, or 10, or 15 days, or any other date, there is no violation of principle in subjecting him to a far lighter composition duty in respect to the average amount of credit which he may obtain by the issue of his deposit receipts. I confess, however, I have no object of raising Revenue in view. I simply seek to introduce a principle of order into the system of interest-bearing deposits, for the protection of bankers and the public alike from the fitful and panic-breeding conditions which have insensibly grown up throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I propose that in future there shall be two classes or kinds of deposit receipts established by law for bankers—the one which I would call the statutable deposit should be issued repayable at three months from the date of the deposit, and if not demanded at its maturity should be again fixed as payable at three months from the day of maturity, and so on from time to time, being, in fact, a three-monthly renewable deposit. I would have the banker to pay some duty on all such deposits—say, for example, 2s. per cent per annum—that is to say, 6d. per £100 for each three months, as a composition in lieu of stamp duty on the average amount he held of money during the year on these statutable deposits. This impost would fall solely on the banker, and would be paid by him in the same manner that bankers now pay a compo-
  1760
  sition duty in lieu of stamp duty on their bank post bills or bank notes in circulation. I assume that in this new class of deposits the banker would derive sufficient advantage from the nature of the contract that he could well afford to pay the 2s. per cent per annum to the Crown on such transactions. But then the question arises, how are we to deal with these depositors who are not satisfied to lodge money at three months with their bankers, but who wish to lodge it at one month, or at 10 days' notice, or at some other currency? Well, there is nothing complicated in my plan. I propose that in all such cases the depositor, and not the banker, should feel the incidence of the duty, and that he should have 6d. per cent deducted from the interest payable to him by the banker for each period less than three months and as fixed by himself for which he had lodged his money. The banker would, of course, be merely a receiver of the duty to pay it over to the Crown, and there would, of course, be a provision that the duty should never operate as a greater charge than could be provided for out of the accrued interest. Now, that is the sum and substance of my plan, free from all mere technical detail. The advantages which I foresee would arise from this system are very great indeed. I believe the three-fourths, probably the seven-eighths, of the deposits now lying in the joint-stock banks of the United Kingdom would be converted into statutable deposits; and the immediate effect of such a translation would be to render it possible for every well-managed bank in the worst of times to provide for every demand upon it without requiring to raise money in any irregular fashion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. COLLINS, in seconding the Resolution, said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal was entitled, under the circumstances of the case, to the thanks of the House for the able and clear way in which he had put forward his views on the question. It seemed to him, however, that his hon. Friend had underrated the value and importance of the subject by fixing the amount of the interest-bearing deposits in the banks of the United Kingdom at a sum of £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 I sterling. He (Mr. Collins), after careful

  1761
  investigation and examination, had come to the conclusion that they amounted to something approaching £1,000,000,000 sterling. There were in England and Wales 119 joint-stock banks, with a paid-up capital of £37,000,000; in Scotland 11 joint-stock banks, with a paid-up capital of £9,000,000; and in Ireland 9 joint-stock banks, with a paid-up capital of £7,000,000; and there were, having offices in London, 56 foreign and colonial banks, with a paid-up capital amounting to £44,000,000. In round numbers, that would amount to about £100,000,000 of paid-up capital. Then, again, there were 190 private provincial banks in the United Kingdom, and 50 private banks in London; and, on the same basis of calculation, he believed it would be found that the amount of capital engaged in the 240 private banks could not fall far short of £100,000,000. Then, with regard to interest-bearing deposits and current accounts, he could not find any authorized published returns of a reliable character on which to base a calculation; but in order to arrive at the best estimate in his power, he took the yearly reports of 20 joint-stock banks, and he believed he was safe in concluding that the interest-bearing deposits and current accounts together reached about six times the amount of the paid-up capital of all those establishments. From his own experience he would deduct for current accounts one-sixth of the entire sum which would leave £1,000,000,000 as the interest-bearing deposits of the United Kingdom. He had made a calculation as to what that sum would produce to the Exchequer, and he found that at the moderate sum of 1 d. per cent per month, or 1s. per cent per annum, it would produce a revenue of £500,000. He thought, however, that the proposal of 2s. per cent for every three months, which would produce £4,000,000 per year, was too high. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA said, his proposal was 2s. per cent per annum.] He was glad to find that he was in error. He and his hon. Friend were at one as regarded the principle of the proposal. There might be differences of view in regard to points of detail; but the principle involved in the question was of serious and grave importance, and deserved consideration. The great objects his hon. Friend had in view were
  1762
  to give increased security and confidence to the public, and to facilitate bankers in controlling the enormous sums with which they had to deal in the conduct of their responsible business, and in protecting them against the unnecessary and most injurious panics which, without cause or reason, at times influenced public opinion. The discussion of the question would at least have the useful result of directing public attention to it; and if opinion in the country were found favourable to its consideration, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be the better enabled, if he thought fit, to embody in the measure, which it was said he had in contemplation, some provisions dealing effectually with the entire subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether a moderate and discriminating scale of Stamp or composition Duties may, with advantage to the interests of the Country and of the Banks, he hereafter applied to all interest-hearing deposits in the Banks of the United Kingdom, and whether a Bill on the subject should he introduced to Parliament at an early date."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he was sure the House would feel indebted to any hon. Members who brought before it the subject of commercial crises, and propounded any reasonable and just remedy against their recurrence; but if the House were to be misled into lending the high sanction of its authority to any scheme which was not wise, and which was not truly calculated to attain this object, it would do enormous harm by leading public opinion astray after a will-o'-the-wisp remedy instead of keeping fixed on the true principles which alone could save them from crises. It appeared to him that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would be utterly inefficacious for the purpose aimed at. It seemed to be thought that the large amount of deposits in banks were more or less the cause of these crises; but it was not the fact of large deposits being in banks which led to bad banking or to crises; it was the employment of deposits by a minority of bankers and other persons engaged in monetary business that led to great evils, the consequences of which could not be exaggerated. He was glad to hear it said, for

  1763
  the credit of bankers generally, that the case of the City of Glasgow Bank was an exceptional case; it was due to the bankers that that should be said. Unhappily, there had been one or two other cases which could not be characterized as anything but discreditable to the persons concerned. But, on the other hand, if the House would remember how many hundreds, if not thousands, of banks and branches in England, Scotland, and Ireland had been conducted, some of them for more than a century, and many for more than half-a-century, without disaster, in spite of great fluctuations in credit, in the supply of money, and in the success of trade, we might congratulate ourselves that scandalous cases like that of the City of Glasgow Bank had been so few, and that, on the whole, our banking system was not unsound. The Mover and Seconder seemed to differ rather widely as to the aggregate amount of deposits in banks, and he had not seen any computation that could be relied upon; but whether they were £300,000,000 or £1,000,000,000, he did not concur in the opinion that bankers could not find enough good borrowers, and were tempted, by the very magnitude of their deposits, to lend on doubtful securities. He had never experienced any difficulty in finding borrowers; sometimes there was a difficulty in finding lenders, but there was never any in finding borrowers. He did not think the difficulty troubled most bankers, and he did not admit that the purchase of securities of a right kind was an improvident investment; it was a most wise and legitimate investment of those deposits; but well-managed banks did not rely upon them generally, and certainly not at a time of pressure. He did not see any reason why the banks should not have these large sums as deposits. As to the remedy proposed, if the unlucky depositor happened to forget to put down the date, his money would be locked up for another two months against his will; but the maker of that proposal reckoned without the public—depositors would be unwilling to submit to it. It was not proposed to place any restriction on the large amount of money deposited in banks, not at sight, but at call; and bankers might play ducks and drakes with that as disastrously as with money deposited at in-
  1764
  terest. In many cases money at call did bear a small interest; so the proposed distinction failed again. These restrictions and interferences could not do any good, and they were calculated only to deceive and trouble the public. No doubt, any act of their lives might be taxed; but that was not a sufficient reason for taxing special transactions or tradesmen unless due cause were shown. It was not urged as a primary reason for this proposed tax that it would produce Revenue. It was supposed that it would restrict deposits; but he did not believe it would have the slightest effect on them, any more than stamps had on bills. All bad bills had borne stamps, and bankers would be improvident with deposits whether they were stamped or not. As to there being no violation of the freedom of contract in what was proposed, there did seem to be a violation of freedom in preventing a man doing what he would with his own. The hon. Mover had entirely failed to prove his case, and he hoped the House would not lend its support to the Motion. Attention ought to be directed to a comparison of the state of this country with that of France, which had comparatively few changes in its rates of discount, and scarcely any commercial crises like ours. It was worth inquiry whether that was due to the large metallic basis of her currency, or to any other cause. He should be glad to co-operate in promoting an inquiry into that subject, as well as into the possibility of suppressing frauds by more stringent legislation, which he thought was wanted. Such inquiry would be worthy of the support of the House.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he must enter his emphatic protest against the House attempting to legislate as to the principles or way in which bankers should manage their business. Such action would, he was convinced, lead to great evil, and he was perfectly certain that it would be of no possible use. He protested, also, against bankers being taxed in the way proposed. No doubt it was the first duty of the banker, or any person receiving money on deposit which he engaged to pay back at a certain time, to take care that he had it when the time came; but to lay down a rule for a particular description of banking, although it might offer a bait to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be

  1765
  opposed to the principle of our legislation. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not rise at it. What did the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) mean by banking? Did he exclude the Rothchilds, the Barings, and a dozen others, who, although not called bankers and not paying a small tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer managed to get from bankers, were the bankers of half the great Powers of Europe and in all parts of the world? How did the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with those great firms? He (Mr. Hankey) was convinced that when the hon. Gentleman came to the point, he would find it almost impossible to define what was meant by a banker, when it was proposed that a particular transaction should be carried out in a particular way. He agreed with the remarks made as to the risks run by bankers receiving money on deposit and allowing interest, and yet subjecting themselves to have it recalled at very short notice, or at call, which was worse; but the matter was so fraught with difficulty that he was surprised to hear a banker of the hon. Member for Youghal's experience treat it in such a manner. Great evil resulted from the undue expansion of that risk; but the principle of allowing interest was sound, for bankers were but agents between lenders and borrowers; but he denied that on that account they ought to be singled out for taxation.
  MR. W. SHAWsaid, he had listened with great attention to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), and he was sorry to say he could not support his Resolution. There was nothing in the world to prevent banks at present agreeing to take deposits at fixed periods of one, two, or three months, at all events, so far as Ireland was concerned. The Resolution would do nothing to avert panics; because, at present, banks must base their calculations on the law of probabilities, and, if they were wise, should always be prepared to pay a certain amount of their liabilities, so that it really did not affect the facts of the case whether the money was taken for a fixed period or not. As to the other question, of placing a tax on deposit receipts, for money deposited upon short notice, he hoped the right hon.
  1766
  Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not entertain the proposal; because, while it would fail to bring in a large amount of Revenue to the Government, it would most certainly very seriously interfere with the business of banking, by introducing into it certain elements of trouble which would most seriously affect it. For instance, it would materially lessen the banking fund on which the business of the country mainly depended. There was the competition between bank and bank; and it must also be remembered that the Post Office savings banks, and other similar institutions for the deposit of money, competed largely with the regular banks and tended to reduce the amount of the general banking fund. If the right hon. Gentleman were to tax the deposits at the bankers, it would be like taxing the raw material of the manufactures of the country, and would prove most injurious to commercial enterprize, without in any way preventing the recurrence of panics. The question of the means that should be taken for preventing the recurrence of panics had doubtless been well pondered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he (Mr. W. Shaw) hoped that he would that week bring before the House some proposal which would touch the very source of the evil complained of. There was one branch of banking with which the right hon. Gentleman might fairly deal, and that was with reference to the note circulation of the country. He might look at the circulation of the country banks, and see whether he could not give facilities for the amalgamation of the small ones. He believed that in England especially an immense deal of the evil was due to the great number of small banks, for when there was anything like fear of a crisis they would make a special effort to prepare themselves for the evil. That, of course, pressed on the whole finances of the community, and often led to the very crisis which they dreaded, and which, but for them, would not have existed. He thought it would be wise of his hon. Friend not to press the Motion to a division.
  MR. HERMONsaid, the money on deposit in the banks was borrowed at 1 per cent below the bank rate and lent out at 1 per cent in advance of it, and the margin represented their profits. If they kept a sufficient sum in hand to

  1767
  meet the ordinary amount of withdrawals, there was no danger in that business. Where the danger did he was in the fact that the great banks were ready to receive from their customers amounts to the extent of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000, repayable at four or seven days, while they were in the habit of lending it on three months' bills. And then, again, these bills were maturing at different dates. He had listened with great attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), but did not think that his plan would be acceptable to the public, or that it would effect the end he wished to attain, and therefore he could not support it. At the same time, he agreed that the rules of banking required consideration.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the House seemed disposed to give but scant justice to the plan laid before it by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). He (Mr. Courtney) thought, however, that if some plan could be adopted which would prevent deposits being made for short periods, bankers would be protected from the sudden calls to which they were now subject. He did not at all agree that the proposal of the hon. Member would diminish the savings of the country; but thought, on the other hand, that it would encourage deposits at a longer notice, and that deposits at short notice and at call would necessarily be abandoned. The idea that the savings would decrease was chimerical, for they would still accumulate and be the foundation of trade. Nor did he agree that it was a conclusive argument against the proposal that it interfered with the conduct of bankers' business. Banks had been interfered with time after time, and notably in 1844 by Sir Robert Peel. He must say, however, that he did not at all see how the proposal would work except upon the condition that stamped deposit receipts were to be given for all sums deposited. Neither was he convinced that it would avoid the evils which the hon. Member sought to avoid. The hon. Member was bound to convince them on both these points before he could expect them to support him. How could the Chancellor of the Exchequer secure the stamp duty on the deposit notes as they came in to be periodically renewed? He did not believe that the plan would prevent the
  1768
  recurrence of panics, inasmuch as panics had arisen over and over again long before joint-stock banks and the practice of receiving money at call or on deposit for short periods existed. Panics depended upon far larger causes than money being received on call. There was another reason which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd)—namely, that if they gave any countenance to that proposal they would pro tanto interfere with that sense of responsibility on the part of bankers on which they must so largely rely. He thought they had good reason for relying on that sense of responsibility. No doubt, they had had the disastrous failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. But let them look at the vast number of banks which had so long conducted their business on just and sound principles, with a due sense of the responsibility that attached to them, and which were always ready to meet their engagements. It required stronger arguments than any yet adduced to justify the laying down of the proposition that if a man was willing to lend another a sum of money for a certain time the State should interfere because that bargain was likely to be injurious to the community. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. W. Shaw) had suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider the advisability of promoting the amalgamation of the small banks. He (Mr. Courtney), however, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would approach that suggestion with very great caution. Danger arose already from the fact that they had banks having hundreds of branches scattered over the Kingdom, and which were superintended by the directors of the central establishment, who often could not possibly exercise the control which was necessary, if the business was to be properly conducted, with so many separate branches. They could not have the directors of a bank in London excercising that due supervision over the borrowing and lending transactions of hundreds of country branches, without which the conduct of its affairs must sometimes be put in jeopardy.
  MR. MUNTZsaid that, in the course of a long experience, that was the first time he had known a Member, and especially a Member of the Opposition, come forward with a proposal to increase taxa-

  1769
  tion. He must protest against that House assuming to itself the function of meddling in the management of the commercial, or, rather, imaginary commercial, affairs of the country. It would be practically impossible for any law to regulate deposits to work, and there was no more reason why they should interfere with the management of banking than with any other business. No doubt, there had been some very great swindles and most infamous frauds in connection with banking; but those cases were very exceptional, and it was one of the most wonderful things that, in spite of the want of confidence caused by the frightful calamity in Glasgow—one of the most wicked that ever occurred in the banking history of the country—and by the failure of a bank in the West of England, the great body of the banks in this country had so managed their affairs that nothing of importance had occurred to them. The arguments of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) went to discourage deposits. But deposits were the very things they ought to encourage. Those deposits, received by the banks and then lent out, judiciously, to those who wanted accommodation at the time, fertilized the whole trade of the country. An hon. Member had put the total amount of these deposits at £ 1,000,000,000 sterling, but he (Mr. Muntz) thought it must be nearer £2,000,000,000. Why were they to interfere with the accommodation afforded by the private banks, which had, on the whole, been prudently managed? The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) said Parliament had been constantly interfering with banking, and he had quoted what was done by the late Sir Robert Peel. Now, Sir Robert Peel, no doubt, put an end to the capacity of the private banks to make money; for that was what their power of issuing notes really amounted to. He, however, knew of no plan brought forward by that great statesman and skilful financier for interfering with the management of banks. To suppress their capacity of making money was a totally different thing from interfering with the internal affairs of banks. The proposal now before the House would have a mischievous effect, because it would tend to check that confidence which he was glad to see now entirely restored.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that the people of Scotland would view with great disfavour any proposal of the kind made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) in his Motion. They, although few had suffered more, did not attribute what they had suffered from the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank to the system of taking deposits. That system had, he (Sir Graham Montgomery) believed, conferred incalculable benefit on the Scotch people. In 1826 it was estimated there were not more than £20,000,000 of deposits in all the banks of Scotland. Now, he believed, they exceeded £70,000,000. It might be said that it was a dangerous principle to encourage the deposit of money at call; but, as far as Scotland was concerned, it had answered extremely well, and he should be sorry to see any interference with that. Any proposal such as that now made to the House would, he was sure, notwithstanding all the suffering that had been inflicted by the great failure to which he had referred, be viewed in Scotland as a serious interference with the rights of banking; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Youghal would not persevere with his Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpresumed, after the discussion which had taken place, that the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would not ask the House to express any opinion on his Motion by a formal vote. But he thought everyone must feel that they were indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having brought on a very interesting discussion, and one which could hardly fail to be of value. He thought they ought also to make this acknowledgment—that the proposal of the hon. Member had not been made merely under a feeling of excitement, owing to particular events which had recently occurred, because, as they knew, that was a matter which had been in his mind for some considerable time; and before the close of last Session he distinctly intimated his intention of bringing forward the proposal embodied in his speech of that evening. At the same time, the sense of the House would, he thought, go entirety with the tenour of the remarks which had been made by so many hon. Members, by his hon. Friend the Member

  1771
  for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) and others, on both sides of the House—namely, that it would be altogether indiscreet and incompatible with the Rules which should guide them in their Parliamentary proceedings that Parliament should undertake to interfere with the details of the management of a business such as banking. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had, as he thought, most accurately distinguished between the course taken by Sir Robert Peel in regard to banking and the course now proposed. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always understood that the principle on which Sir Robert Peel proceeded was that banking, as banking, ought to be left as free as possible. But as to the power of issuing money, that was a matter which was properly under the control of the State, and one which the State ought to regulate. There was no doubt that, in regulating the question of issue to a certain extent, the liberty and the proceedings of the issuing banks were interfered with; but that was only as a subordinate part of the main object of that legislation, the regulation of the issue. Now, having adopted the proposition which he had laid down, that it was not a part of the functions of Parliament to regulate the details of a business such as banking, and having stated that it was undesirable that they should come to a Resolution on such a question, he thought he should be inconsistent with his own doctrine if he were to attempt to examine that proposal on its merits, because the ground he would rather take was this—that it was a proposal, although useful to converse upon, the merits of which they should not discuss too minutely. At the same time, he would say that it struck him that there was something rather inconsistent on the face of the proposal in one respect; because, as he understood the hon. Member's argument, it was this—Inasmuch as the necessity for making a sufficient profit out of the deposits on which interest was paid to cover the interest paid to the depositors and leave a margin, necessarily tempted bankers to invest in risky securities in order to get a high rate of interest, it seemed to him a rather curious remedy that they should add to that temptation by imposing a tax on the banker, who would not only have to
  1772
  cover the interest he had to pay his depositors and to get a little profit for himself, but also have to cover the tax to be paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not wish, however, to discuss that point very much. He admitted that there was something very tempting in the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman who had brought this matter under the notice of the House. When they referred to the £500,000 a-year which he might realize as Revenue, he could not help saying, like the Governor in The Critic on his being offered £1,000—" Thou hast touched me nearly." If he saw any object of taxation which it was proper, and which it appeared convenient to tax, he should be right in proposing that a tax should be laid upon it for the purpose of raising a Revenue. But when it was proposed to impose a tax, not for the purpose of obtaining a Revenue, but in order to regulate a business, he was obliged to regard the proposal from another point of view. With respect to this particular question of a tax on deposits, many hon. Members might remember that in former times there used to be a tax on deposits. Up to the year 1853 there was a stamp duty on all receipts given for money lying at interest. In that year the tax was done away with. In 1870, when the consolidation of the Stamp Laws was effected, the Bill was so drawn that it contained a clause that would have imposed the tax again; and he believed that, on the Motion of the late Sir David Salomons, the House again decided not to re-impose the tax. In consequence, the Bill was so amended that the tax was not introduced. He was not quite sure, however, that the whole question of the stamp duty and of income tax on money derived from deposits was in an entirely satisfactory state. He thought the subject required consideration; but hon. Gentlemen were aware that the interest derived from deposits was liable to income tax. The banks did not, however, deduct that income tax, and therefore the recipient was left to pay the tax himself. That was not always a convenient mode of raising the money. He mentioned this fact, which was a separate one, incidentally, only in order to show that he had all these questions under consideration. With regard to the hon. Member's proposal, which was that they should

  1773
  introduce taxation so as to discourage the system of deposits, that was a matter with which the House had better not attempt to interfere, and in which he could not encourage it to interfere. A conversation of this sort was valuable on account of the opinions it elicited, even although the House might stop short of action in the matter; and what was said in the House might assist in dispelling misunderstandings elsewhere.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAacknowledged the question was not quite ripe for decision. He should, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Resolution, at the same time thanking it for the attention it had given to the subject. He further hoped that the discussion would have the effect of keeping the public mind directed to banking.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE WATER SUPPLY.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. E. S. HOWARD, in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address "be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the supply of water to the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and the west of Yorkshire, and any deficiencies likely to arise therein; and, whether it is necessary or expedient to resort to the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes to make good any deficiencies in such supply; and, if so, to what extent, and under what conditions, such resort should be sanctioned,"
    said, that he felt it necessary to submit the reasons which induced him to call attention to this subject a second time. Last year be placed upon the Paper Notice of a similar Motion, but the Eastern debate intervening, he was compelled to postpone it, and he then raised the question by moving the rejection of the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, stating, at the same time, that if he was successful in obtaining the rejection of the Bill he should move for a Royal Commission. The reason of his opposition to that Bill was that it was a Bill of too great public importance to be dealt with by a Private Bill Committee, but that a careful investigation was demanded. The present Prime Minister, in one of his earlier works, stated that the opinion of
    1774
    a country was better represented through the Press than through Parliament; and if that statement was as full of "sense and truth" as some of his later utterances were said to be, they were fully justified in carrying on their opposition to the Bill, because almost the whole Press of the country united in condemning it. The result of their efforts last year was that a Select Committee was appointed, with special instructions, to
    "Inquire into and report upon the present sufficiency of the water supply of Manchester and its neighbourhood, and of any other sources available for such supply: To consider whether permission should be given to make use of any of the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes for the purpose; and, if so, how far, and under what conditions: To consider the prospective requirements of the populations situated between the Lake District and Manchester: To inquire and report whether any, and, if so, what, provisions should be made in limitation of proposals for the exclusive use of the water of any of the said Lakes."
    The opponents of the Bill agreed to the conditions, because they believed they contained the principle for which they had been contending—namely, that the question was one of public interest and importance; that the inquiry ought to be public; and that the expenses of fighting it should not be thrown entirely on those individuals who had formed themselves into an Association for preserving the natural features of the Lake District. The Committee commenced at once to regard the case simply as one between the promoters and opponents. They did not seem to have sought any further evidence. Now, it was impossible for that Association to which he had referred, with its limited means, to present such elaborate plans and details as Mr. Bateman, the Engineer to the Manchester Corporation, was able to produce. The Manchester Corporation had the services of Sir Edmund Beckett, who treated the evidence of the opposition in his usual complimentary manner, and the Committee seemed to have adopted his views. They said, moreover, that the evidence which had been adduced as to the supplies which might be obtained from other sources was unworthy of consideration, and thus simplified their task by assuming that there was no other water supply. He (Mr. Howard) had been told that evidence was offered to them of an entirely different and most comprehensive scheme, and that they declined to go into it. He

    1775
    maintained, therefore, that the opponents of the Bill had raised a primâ facie case that there were other sources of supply, and that the Select Committee ought to have gone further than they did; and that that Committee did not use the powers with which they had been armed to the extent to which the public had a right to expect. The Committee seemed to accept the statements of the promoters of the Bill without sifting them. Take, for example, the question of population. To begin with, there was a remarkable discrepancy on this point. When the Bill was first introduced into this House, a deputation from Manchester waited on the Chairman of Ways and Means, and, in presenting their case, the Mayor of Manchester said that the number of people the Manchester Corporation had to supply with water was 800,000. But a few weeks afterwards, before the Committee, it was stated by the promoters of the Bill that the number of people was over 900,000. He (Mr. Howard) did not know whether these people had been hastily manufactured in the interval, or how Manchester had increased so rapidly; but if the population of Manchester was to keep on increasing with such power of multiplication, any scheme for supplying them with water short of a reproduction of the Flood would fail in its object. One of the main allegations of the supporters of the Bill was that in less than 10 years there would be a deficiency in the supply of water at the present rate of increase in the population. Twenty-five million gallons was the present supply, and' they admitted that that would be sufficient for 1,000,000 people; but they said that before 10 years the population of Manchester and district would have increased to 1,300,000, and that, therefore, there would be a deficiency of water; and they argued that, because it would take seven years to carry out their present scheme, there ought to be no delay in passing their Bill. But how did the Committee arrive at that estimate? They took the number of additional houses and warehouses erected each year in Manchester and the neighbourhood, allowing five persons to each house. That was the way the estimate was arrived at that Manchester and the neighbourhood would increase to so great an extent. It ought to be remembered, however, that the time at which these calculations were made was a time
    1776
    of exceptional prosperity, when houses and manufactories were springing up like mushrooms; and he (Mr. Howard) did not think the number of additional buildings in any one year formed a sound basis on which to calculate the increase in the population. Taking the Census itself, the figures told quite a different tale. The increase was estimated by the Committee and by the Manchester Corporation to be very nearly 39 per cent; whereas, if estimated according to the last Census Returns, the increase would only be 12½ per cent. Perhaps he might be told that the increase rose in every decennial period. On the contrary, the fact was that when they came to compare those periods since 1821 they would find a regular decrease. The county of Lancashire gave a return of 27 per cent from 1821 to 1831; from 1831 to 1841, 25 per cent; from 1841 to 1851, 22 per cent; from 1851 to 1861, 20 per cent; and from 1861 to 1871, 16 per cent. Taking Salford and South-East Lancashire, the percentage decreased from 30 per cent in 1821–31 to 13 per cent in 1861–71. Therefore, the estimate of the Select Committee was formed on entirely erroneous information. Beyond this, the independent investigations which the Committee had made had cost the Treasury simply six guineas—and this in a scheme which involved an estimated outlay of £4,000,000; which estimate would probably increase much faster than the population which had to pay it, and which would more like reach to £6,000,000 before the works were completed. He, therefore, contended that the Committee had limited the nature of their investigations to such an extent that the inquiry was not at all adequate to the subject, and that they failed to give it that consideration which the public had a right to expect. However, they passed the Bill with certain alterations. They were very good alterations. They required that Manchester should supply all the towns on the line of conduit, and supply it at a profit of not more than 5 per cent. That did away with the speculative character of the Bill, because it was notorious that the object of the Corporation was to obtain a monopoly of this supply, and then to sell it to all the towns which might be hard up for water for as much money as they could get. The House of Lords threw out the Bill on the Standing

    1777
    Orders, and it had been introduced again this year, amended in accordance with the proposals of the Select Committee. Therefore it was that he had now thought it worth while to ask the House to pause once more before sanctioning this scheme—a scheme which involved such great alterations in the features and characteristics of the Lake District which many of them prized so high, a scheme which involved the outlay of a sum equal to that which Her Majesty's Ministers thought fit last year to ask the House to grant for the preservation of the Empire. He asked the House, before sanctioning such a scheme, to institute a thorough inquiry into the whole question of the water supply of those districts. The importance of the subject was too evident to need demonstration from him. About 10 years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the water supply of London, and they were also instructed to extend their inquiry to the provincial towns. But the nature of the first inquiry was so protracted that they could not go into the second, and they merely laid down a few general principles, and pointed out a few gathering grounds for future investigation. The further investigation had not taken place, and if it seemed important then it must be much more important now. No doubt he should be told that because a Select Committee had already inquired into the subject there was no need for further inquiry; but he submitted that be had already shown that the inquiry of the Select Committee of last year was of too limited a nature, and was not such as the public had a right to expect. He thought he had also shown that their estimates of the increased population of Manchester and the probable requirements of that population had been much exaggerated. It was admitted that the present waterworks of the Manchester Corporation cost more than was estimated; and, no doubt, it was in order to make up for that that the Corporation had been obliged to sell the water to manufacturers which had been intended for future generations. This had occurred in years of prosperity, when new manufactories sprung up in the district, and that was the reason why they were short of water now, when their works ought to have lasted much longer. They were told on the
    1778
    highest authority that the present depression of trade was due to over-trading. Perhaps they might not have an opportunity of repeating that process for some time to come, and no doubt they would be glad to postpone it as long as possible. He thought, therefore, in all the circumstances, delay would not be a misfortune to Manchester, but rather a great boon and benefit, by delaying or preventing the execution of this scheme, involving such an enormous outlay to the ratepayers, and calculated as it was to reproduce that distress from which they had so recently suffered. For these reasons, he asked the House to assent to the Motion. If a Royal Commission were appointed, they would insure that the Lakes should not be subjected to such operations as were contemplated by the Bill until other resources had been fully inquired into and found wanting; and if the Royal Commission should decide that it would be right and proper to use the Lakes for the purposes contemplated, they would lay down limitations as to interference with the natural features and characteristics of the district; but if the Bill were allowed to pass, and the Royal Commission were not granted, and if Lake Thirlmere were to be "restored to its ancient condition," they should submit to the inevitable result, and see their Lakes taken one after another and "restored" to their ancient or some other shape by some eminent engineer. He was afraid there were many persons, although he was not one of them, who would agree with the wish of an eminent Professor, that "rather than see the waters of Thirlmere brought to the tops of the houses of Manchester, he would prefer to see the houses of Manchester brought to the bottom of the waters of Lake Thirlmere." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE, in seconding the Resolution, said, that he was strongly of opinion that it would not only be in the interests of the people of the West Riding of Yorkshire, but also in the interests of the ratepayers of Manchester, to have this question of water supply from Thirlmere fully inquired into. He might say that no one would be more willing than himself to facilitate any measure for supplying the inhabitants of Manchester with an abundant supply of water; but he denied, in the first place,

    1779
    that there was any danger of a water famine in that town; and, in the second place, he believed the Thirlmere scheme was the most expensive that could have been devised by the Corporation of Manchester or any other body of persons. The people of Manchester had quite close to them, in Derbyshire, one of the most admirable gathering grounds that could be imagined—a gathering ground which could give a supply of water for any length of time and in any circumstances, at a rate infinitely less than it would cost to get water from the Cumberland Lakes. There were, of course, those who would tell them that the people of Manchester knew their own concerns best, and that they could undoubtedly carry on their business better than anybody else. Now, while giving the people of Manchester every credit for the proper comprehension of their own affairs, he would accept any such statement on this particular question with more or less reserve, and for this reason—that he believed the idea of gathering water for the legitimate supply of Manchester on the spot where it could be most usefully utilized had never been dreamt or thought of practically until the Thirlmere Water Scheme had taken possession of certain minds in the Corporation of Manchester. And, again, the Corporation of Manchester itself was not unanimous by any means in favour of the Bill, for after the scheme was introduced into Parliament there was ample evidence of this. It was well known that, in the first instance, it was the intention of the Corporation of Manchester to become practically a huge association of dealers in water; and that if they had been successful in passing this Bill in its original form, they would have proceeded to make their own terms for the supply of water to other towns. They also knew, as a matter of fact, that if the Corporation of Manchester succeeded in getting their Bill, even in its amended form, and were allowed to appropriate the Lake, a precedent would be established for other towns to follow. Other Corporations would assuredly come to Parliament and say—"We want this Lake, or that Lake," with the inevitable result that at last there would remain no available source of supply for West Yorkshire. Leeds itself, and the other large towns, it was true, could not be said to
    1780
    have a bad supply of water; but when they came to the small manufacturing towns in the district running from Todmorden to the east of Leeds—a very wide district, indeed—they found that immense pressure had existed on account of the general want of an adequate supply of water. The water supply had been certainly deficient throughout this network of small towns and villages; and to allow any one Corporation to say to the inhabitants of West Yorkshire—"We will appropriate by Parliamentary powers, if we can get them, the whole of a large Lake, and you may get your supply as best you can," would be a matter calculated, not only to irritate, but to work public injury. It was with great cordiality, therefore, that he asked, on behalf of those who surrounded him in the neighbourhood of Leeds, that, before any legislation took place on the question, they in that district should have what they asked for—namely, a full and searching inquiry, not only for Manchester itself, but for the whole district to which he had referred. In the event of such an inquiry taking place, he sincerely hoped that it would not be confined to Thirlmere, or to any other Lake of East Cumberland. The whole question of the permanent water supply throughout the entire North of England should be entered into; and it should be ascertained whether Manchester might not have confined itself for a water supply to the immense gathering ground afforded by the rivers and other head waters in its vicinity. If it were possible to obtain water so close at hand, such sources would be far better utilized for the purposes of Manchester than that contemplated by the Thirlmere Scheme. In conclusion, he would again cordially press upon the House the advisability of adopting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cumberland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the supply of water to the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and the West of Yorkshire, and any deficiencies likely to arise therein; and, whether it is necessary or expedient to resort to the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes to make good any deficiencies in such supply; and, if so, to what extent, and under what conditions, such resort should be sanctioned."—(Mr. Edward Howard.)
    MR. BIRLEY: I listened with great regret and no less surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, who introduced the Motion. I was prepared for an attack on the Manchester Corporation and upon those who have promoted the Manchester Corporation Water Bill; but I was not prepared for an attack to be made on the Select Committee by whom the Bill was last year considered. That Committee was chosen with great care, and was, I am sure, as competent to deal with this important question as any Committee that could have been chosen by this House—I would also venture to say as competent, probably, as any Royal Commission Her Majesty's Ministers could choose for this purpose. The question of the Thirltnere Scheme was laid before the Select Committee, and their Report upon it was, I believe, adopted with singular unanimity. That unanimity was no less felt in the district which it is proposed to benefit by the scheme. A public meeting was held, according to the Statute bearing upon the question, in Manchester, to approve or disapprove of the scheme. A poll was demanded, and a poll was taken, and the result was a majority of 40,000, as against less than 3,000, in favour of a scheme which we are told is so heavily to tax the people of Manchester. Then we are told in the same breath that it is to relieve Manchester from the burden imposed on it by the failure of the present water scheme. I am free to admit that that water scheme has cost a great deal more than was originally contemplated; but I should say, from the observations of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, that he has a superficial knowledge of the subject himself. He tells us that from the present sources there is an abundant supply of water, only that the Corporation are obliged to sell it in order to raise the money to recoup the expenses. Now, the fact is, all the water that is sold is sold under statutory obligations. The Corporation of Manchester is bound to supply the neighbourhood and district. The water is readily taken, and when a dry season occurs considerable distress is felt. I submit that the question of providing an abundant supply of water to a great population is one that ought to be treated with the greatest favour by this House, owing to the necessity for it in our
    1782
    manufacturing districts, both for the personal wants of the population and for manufacturing purposes. This scheme, as the hon. Member has truly stated, has been enlarged by the direction of the Committee, so that it is not merely a scheme for supplying water to Manchester, but for providing the manufacturing districts of South-East Lancashire. He approves of that alteration, so does the Corporation of Manchester; therefore I would suggest to him that if he does wish the House to accept his Resolution, that he should eliminate from it everything which relates to the county of Lancaster, and content himself—probably with the approbation of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-house)—with confining it to West Yorkshire—if, indeed, it should be found to be desired by that part of the country. I very much question, however, whether the West Riding does desire a Royal Commission of this kind. The Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission is substantially carried out by the Thirlmere Scheme as it now stands. I might bring forward many other arguments to show why this Motion ought not to be passed, and I do not think that any practical purpose would be served by passing it. Of course, the wants of West Yorkshire deserve the utmost consideration. Yorkshire ought to have every opportunity of making known its requirements; but it is not the case that this Motion is really supported by West Yorkshire, and it is perfectly clear that the object is to hinder and obstruct the Manchester Scheme, at whatever cost and whatever inconvenience to a population approaching 1,000,000, in order that the æsthetic views of the hon. Member and his Friends may be respected. The views of the hon. Member are not the views of his constituents, for the people of Cumberland generally are in favour of the scheme; but there are a few persons who take views similar to the fullest extent. I believe those views are imaginary. I believe the Corporation of Manchester will be able to satisfy them that the picturesque beauty of the Lakes will not be interfered with, and that every care will be taken to preserve the natural features of the country. The principal holders of property in the district are already satisfied, and there is, in short, no real substantial objection to the Bill. I therefore think

    1783
    that this Motion, which is one merely hostile to the Manchester Bill, ought not to be accepted by this House.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he was of opinion that the House should not appoint a Royal Commission as proposed. The whole question of water supply was one which deserved the attention of the House. At this moment there were before Parliament 23 Bills and 10 Provisional Orders dealing with water supply; and when he informed the House that these schemes involved an expenditure of nearly £6,000,000, the importance of the subject would be perceived. The practice of the House had been when such Bills had been read a second time to refer them to Select Committees, who dealt with them according to the evidence that came before them. One great objection to that system was that there was no uniformity in the action of those Committees. The General Acts which governed the question of water supply, though sufficient in former years, were not sufficient at the present time; and if reference were made to the Acts of 1835 and 1847, it would be found that they might now be greatly improved upon. As regards the purity of the water, for instance, it was not of such a high standard as it ought to be. Then, again, it very often happened that the Water Companies or Corporations taking powers to supply areas failed to supply portions of those areas, and thus practically created a water famine in the parts which they were bound to supply. This was a question which ought to be scrupulously investigated and guarded against in every private Water Bill. In the case of the Manchester Bill, the Committee were empowered to consider questions outside the area which the Manchester Corporation was supposed to supply; but in all the ordinary Water Bills it was impossible for the Committee to consider the water wants of any village or town which might be outside the particular area proposed to be supplied. These were matters which ought to be remedied; and he would suggest that the Chairmen of the various Committees which would be formed should have some means of laying down a uniform line of action. He desired to see some kind of uniformity with reference to these Water Bills; and if they would compare one Bill with the other, they
    1784
    would see that these points should receive attention, and that uniformity was required. He believed it was necessary that further provisions should be made in these Water Bills for the protection of the public. His suggestion would be that a number of experienced Members of the House should be chosen as Chairmen of the Private Bill Committees who would consider all the water schemes submitted, and that they should be formed into a panel, similar to the General Committee on Railway Bills, and by that means the House would insure that not only uniformity would be preserved, but that justice would be done. He cared very little what the remedy was to be; but he did object to the present system, which was really chaos, and anything they could do to improve it would be acceptable. He hoped in making these remarks he was not out of Order; and he made the suggestion simply that more experienced Gentlemen in the House should take the matter up and do something in the direction he had indicated. He must, however, conclude by saying that he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The House will hardly expect that the Government will be prepared to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the statement which we have heard from the hon. Member who proposed the Motion. The statement he made was of a very limited character, and resolved itself into the details of what is known as the Thirlmere Water Scheme—which will, I believe, be before the House to-morrow—and the view the Committee took of that matter last year. I should have thought, in bringing such a subject forward, the hon. Member would have done so on broader grounds; that he would have attempted to show that the Lake Districts were being injured, and that the water supply of certain localities was in danger in consequence of a preference being given to certain large towns over some of their smaller neighbours, or that there was fear of a water famine in Lancashire or South Yorkshire. Indeed, I should have supposed that the hon. Member would have brought forward a case which unmistakably called for the intervention of Parliament; but in that respect he has, I consider, entirely failed. The question of a Royal Com-

    1785
    mission on the subject of water supply is a large one, and it was brought before me by an important and influential deputation in 1874, and by the Society of Arts in the early part of last year. Had the hon. Gentleman proceeded on broader grounds, and applied for a Royal Commission as a reformer in respect of water supply, and as one anxious to promote the general interests of the public, I should have been able to give information from Blue Books, as there are not only the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Committee, but in the sixth Report of the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers in 1874 there is a mass of evidence of an exhaustive character and great precision, and a number of suggestions as to a quantity of districts, all more or less bearing on this subject. There are also other Reports, and other Blue Books and Notices, having reference to water supply generally, which are open to the inspection of anyone, and are of a most valuable description. I may mention that there is a compendium, which was arranged last year at the request of the Society of Arts, which gives information as to the whereabouts of any of these Reports; and for that, among other reasons, I do not see the necessity of further special inquiries. If I had been challenged as to the grounds upon which I objected to the Motion, I should have said simply that I did not see what useful end could be gained by appointing such a Commission. The Public Health Act of 1875 greatly increased the powers of local authorities with reference to water supply, and protected them against Water Companies, and under that Act large sums of money are being borrowed for the purpose of water supply. Again, we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. H. Brown) for the Committee which sat last year, and which greatly facilitated the powers of local authorities to obtain water. That Committee, I consider, obtained ample information, and the Bill which was before them came out a good and improved measure. Having thus dealt with the general subject in the way I have mentioned, the present Motion does not commend itself to my mind, because it is not only an attack upon the Committee of last year, but it is also an attack upon the Thirlmere Water Scheme, which is to come before us on another day.
    1786
    The House was not last year prejudiced in favour of that scheme. It was read a second time after ample discussion; it was referred to a Hybrid Committee; and when that Committee was appointed the whole subject was left to them. The Committee amended the Bill and reported in its favour, and it was lost in the Lords because the promoters accepted the suggestions of the Committee and embodied them in the Bill. It has now been revived, and the Manchester ratepayers have strongly supported the policy of the Corporation in bringing the subject again before the House; and the Bill, I believe, is set down for second reading to-morrow. I cannot, therefore, see what the House would gain by accepting the Motion, and thus delaying the second reading of a measure which comes to us so strongly supported. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) went so far as to admit that there was an ample supply of water for Yorkshire itself already existing; but that is not the case at Manchester. Manchester, however, does not seek to monopolise the Lakes; but, on the contrary, a large population will be supplied by the aqueducts which carry the water. In these circumstances, I do not see that any case has been made out for a Royal Commission. Whether the Committee did all the hon. Member thinks they ought to have done or not I am not prepared to say; but if he desires to challenge the conduct of the Committee, I think he should have done so by a more specific Motion, so that the Members of the Committee might have been prepared to meet it, and might have been made aware that their conduct was under examination. It is a little unusual to make such attacks as the hon. Member has levelled at the Committee without giving the Members of it notice; and we shall be led into endless controversy if the action of every Committee is to be brought in review before the House, as has been the case here. If the Committee obeyed the instructions given to them by the House, as I must assume they did, those instructions were not very wide from what the hon. Member would give to a Royal Commission, and the House will see that the Committee did obey their instructions, because they improved the Bill in a manner acceptable to the House,

    1787
    and put the whole subject in a form which was still further developed in the Bill of this year. On the part of the Government, therefore, I may say that we do not feel called upon, simply upon the ground stated, to issue a Royal Commission on the subject.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Howard) had stated his case to the House, and, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt bound to say that on public grounds he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). He (Mr. W. E. Forster) said this as one who had taken considerable interest in the water supply from Thirlmere Lake, and the question of the Lake scenery generally. He hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question. He would not now enter into the question of whether the water could be obtained elsewhere or not; that was a point decided by the Committee; but it appeared to him that the Corporation of Manchester had consented to obligations which, if Manchester was to get water from the Lake at all, would, as far as possible, protect the Lake scenery. Looking at the matter from the point of view in which he was most interested, he did not think that any advantage could accrue from the appointment of a Royal Commission. On the other hand, he was not at all sure that even greater interference with the Lakes than had already been proposed would not be the result of such a step. It was said that care would be taken to prevent the water being taken from the Lakes, unless it were clearly shown that it could not be obtained elsewhere. But he would not like to guarantee that this Commission, or the Committees, to whom future Bills might be referred, would endorse this view of the matter. With regard to the Bill of last year, he confessed that he thought the promoters had a good case. The Hybrid Committee appointed last year gave great consideration to the subject. That Committee had come to a conclusion he regretted; but he could not deny that it was a Committee which included many able men, who fully entered into the subject, and they made certain recommendations which the promoters accepted, and it was in consequence of that that they lost their Bill in the House of Lords. He repeated he was sorry the Corporation of Mau-
    1788
    Chester had set their minds upon getting water from Thirlmere; but he believed they were doing what they could to secure that as little harm as possible was done to the scenery; and, looking at all the circumstances, he was unable to vote for the Motion.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the hon. Member for East Cumberland was not open to censure for bringing this subject forward. His hon. Friend asked him whether it would be regular for him to move an abstract Resolution on the second reading of the Bill; and he (Mr. Raikes) pointed out the difficulty that would naturally arise if he did so. The consequence was that the Bill was read a second time after a very full and important discussion. He (Mr. Raikes) had taken an active part in the proceedings of the Hybrid Committee of last year, and he considered that no Committee was over better constituted. His greatest difficulty, which was one of policy, was removed by the action of the Committee in depriving the Bill of the speculative character it originally possessed, and in insuring that a reasonable price was paid for the water. But he thought that the hon. Member had a perfect right to be dissatisfied with the result arrived at, and to come before the House to ask, if he deemed such a course necessary, for a Royal Commission, thus challenging the opinion of the House on the subject before the Bill that had been brought in could be read a second time. At any rate, this was a much more convenient course than if the whole question had to be raised on the Motion for the second reading. He had not the advantage, apparently possessed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, of being familiar with the large amount of information upon this subject to which he referred; and he regretted that so much confusion should exist on this question throughout England in those districts where the different communities were fighting for the water which was to be had from the several watersheds—a rivalry that was, in reality, a great scandal. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had, however, stated that the Government would supply Members with the Rules under which, in their opinion, water supply should be regulated. It would be very convenient to

    1789
    Members to be supplied with those Rules.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. RAIKES, in conclusion, advised the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had had the honour of being Chairman of the Hybrid Committee that had sat for many weary days, and had devoted much time to the examination of this question last year. The Committee was, indeed, more like a Royal Commission than an ordinary Committee of that House. Its Members had examined the whole question in an impartial sense. They had to deal with a general meteorological fact, for the great south-western winds swept over the Atlantic and evaporated a large quantity of water on the way, while the high mountains of Westmoreland and Cumberland acted as condensers, so that the water was poured over the district in which those mountains were situated. The Committee had to consider whether the Lake regions thus formed were to be regarded as the property of one district, or whether they belonged to the whole of England, from the position in which they were placed, and the peculiar function they discharged; and, consequently, they had examined the question in its fullest and largest sense. It so happened that in the House of Lords the Bill, as it passed from that Committee, was thrown out because a Local Bill had been made into an Imperial Bill. The Duke of Richmond's Commission had examined the Bill in the same catholic spirit, and the House of Commons' Committee were, in reality, only able to ratify the decisions of that Commission. Not only had they to consider the question of the supply of other towns in Lancashire besides Manchester, but they had also to consider how all the intervening towns might benefit from the common depository of water in the Lake district. The Committee, therefore, did not restrict its labours, but examined the question most fully. Under these circumstances, he thought, considering the fact of so much time having been devoted to this question, and so much labour having been expended upon the Bill, which
    1790
    was not a Local Bill, but one generally affecting the great manufacturing districts of the country, that to form another Royal Commission would cast some doubt on the fulness of the labours of that Committee; and therefore he trusted the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Howard) would not press the matter to a division, but would be contented with having called attention to the subject.
    MR. E. S. HOWARDwished to be allowed to state, before withdrawing his Motion, that he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) for coming to his assistance, and saying that he had done nothing irregular; because he thought, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Selater-Booth) said, he had done something which was not only irregular, but atrocious. He begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. HAXKEY, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. SEELY, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON nominated other Members of the Committee.
    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ELLIOT, Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales, ordered to he brought in by Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. RODWELL, and Mr. Serjeant SPINKS.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to declare the true moaning of Section Thirty of "The Friendly Societies Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Heading—Medical Act, 1858, Amendment (16).
MEDICAL ACT, 1858, AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in presenting a Bill to amend the Medical Act, 1858, said, it was not necessary that he should enter at any length upon the previous legislation with regard to medical education, as he did so last Session; but he might remind their Lordships that the object of the Bill he then submitted to their Lordships, and which he had now the honour of laying on the Table, was to amend the Act of 1858, which, though it contained a great number of valuable enactments and provided for the granting of certificates by Conjoint Boards to practise in medicine and surgery in England, Ireland, and Scotland, yet contained no compulsory provision for that purpose. The Conjoint Examination Board had, in reality, never come into action. No stops had been taken by Scotland or Ireland for the formation of a Conjoint Board, though in England some progress had been made in that direction. The matter remained unaltered until the year 1870; but in the latter year the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon), who preceded him in the Privy Council, introduced a measure in that House for the purpose of amending the Medical Act of 1858. That measure provided that the establishment of a Conjoint Board should be compulsory instead of permissive, and that a certificate to be given by the Board to an applicant should qualify him to enter the Medical Profession. That Bill was discussed and carried through all its stages in their Lordships' House; but in the other House of Parliament it failed to pass, in consequence of the Medical Association having objected to the constitution of the Medical Council. The Medical Association desired that there should be a representation on the Medical Council of the whole Medical Profession. The opposition which was instituted against his noble Friend's Bill in the other House of Parliament was successful; and from that time until last year, he (the Duke of Richmond) thought he was right in saying no medical legislation on the part of the Government had been attempted. But, occupying the place which his noble Friend recently occupied, he (the Marquess of Ripon) could

  1723
  well understand that he had the subject constantly before him. He had consultations with various persons qualified to judge of the question of medical education; and, in consequence, he had come to the conclusion to deal with the question last year. He accordingly introduced a measure in their Lordships' House. In that Bill, so far as England was concerned, the principle of a Conjoint Board was approved of; but as regarded Scotland and Ireland, the establishment of such a Board was allowed to be optional, instead of being made obligatory, or, in other words, the medical authorities were only to adopt the provisions of the Act if they should see fit. Having since then considered all the arguments which bad been brought forward against the optional character of the Bill in that respect, he was of opinion that to leave the setting up of a Conjoint Board optional would not be consistent with reason. Therefore, in the Bill he should lay on the Table, the establishment of a Conjoint Board in each division of the Kingdom was made compulsory. Some of the most distinguished medical men in this country had manifested a desire for the establishment of a Conjoint Board, and he was himself convinced that if a measure were passed of an optional character an attempt to set up a Conjoint Board would fail. The English Committee for settling a Conjoint Board had held more than 50 meetings. In that Committee the College of Surgeons was represented by Sir James Paget and Mr. John Marshall; the University of Oxford by Dr. Henry W. Acland and Dr. George Rolleston; the University of Cambridge by Dr. G. E. Paget and Dr. G. M. Humphry; the University of Durham by Dr. G. H. Philipson and Dr. George G. Heath; the University of London by Dr. Richard Quain and Dr. W. B. Carpenter; the College of Physicians by Dr. James Risdon Bennett and Dr. Henry Pitman; and the Society of Apothecaries by Mr. E. Cradford and Mr. George Corfe. This Committee had given the fullest consideration to the subject, and they were strongly in favour of the change he now proposed; and he trusted that the same reasons which had induced him to propose a compulsory measure would also have weight with the Medical Bodies of Ireland and Scotland. The Bill provided that where a Medical Corporation refused
  1724
  to admit a student to their body, he having produced a certificate of having passed the examination of the Conjoint Board, the student should be entitled to go to the Registrar for the purpose of having his name inserted in the register as of right. This provision had become the more necessary since they compelled the Conjoint Board to examine female students; if, therefore, women were refused admittance to the Corporation, they would, under this provision, having passed the examination of the Conjoint Board, be entitled to be placed directly on the register. With regard to the penalties on unregistered practitioners, and kindred matters, these being practically the same as those in the Bill of last year, he did not think it was at all necessary that he should trouble their Lordships by going into details of the clauses. He might, indeed, now conclude all he had to say upon the Bill, if it were not for one subject, to which he had already lightly alluded, and that was the constitution of the Medical Council. He was sure his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) would excuse him for saying that that was the rock on which shipwreck was made in 1870; and it was with a view to avoid a similar disaster that he proposed to touch the subject in a different way now. The Medical Council consisted of the representatives of the 19 various licensing bodies. There were six nominees of the Crown and a President appointed by the Council. He should like to read the names of the Council—The President, Dr. Acland; Crown nominees, Dr. Quain, Sir William Gull, Mr. John Simon, Mr. Teale, Dr. Fergus, and Dr. Hudson; representative members, Dr. Pitman, Sir James Paget, Mr. Bradford, Dr. Pyle, Dr. Storrar, Dr. Haldane, Dr. Orr, Dr. Wood, Professor Turner, Dr. Pettigrew, Dr. Aquilla Smith, Dr. Leet, Dr. S. Haughton, Sir Dominic Corrigan, Dr. Rolleston, and Mr. R. Macnamara. This was a very eminent body of men; and be might now say that no objection had reached him as to the qualifications of the Crown nominees. Certainly, in those he had recommended to the Crown, he had been actuated only by a desire to select the best men he could find in the Profession for the purpose, and from his knowledge of those appointed by his Predecessors in Office, he was confident that they were actuated by the same feeling. He was

  1725
  equally certain that those elective bodies had the same object in view, and would select men who were most competent and who would carry out their duties in the most efficient manner. He was sure he might say that his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) would corroborate his statement, that all those gentlemen had performed their duties faithfully and well. The Council had been in action for 20 years, and he thought all would agree that they had deserved well of their country. Of course, the argument of the eminence of those gentlemen, or reference to the manner in which they had performed their duties, did not weigh with those who thought there ought to be a representative Council, and those who desired to have votes in the representation and who desired to have the Council very much altered in its character. There were several schemes for the amendment of the Council brought forward by various bodies. One scheme was that there should be representatives of the whole Profession upon the Council. To enable them to do this some would increase the number of the Council. He did not adhere to that view, because he thought the Council was already sufficiently large. There was another proposal—that the bodies now sending representatives to the Council should have their number curtailed in order to make room for the representation of the Medical Profession at large. There was another proposal—that the number of persons nominated by the Crown should be diminished with the like object. All these were questions which seemed to him not unworthy of consideration; but they involved a very wide inquiry, and he certainly did not feel himself justified in including the matter in the Bill without further information than he possessed at the present time. It was, therefore, the intention of the Government to suggest that there should be a Committee of the other House appointed to inquire into the matter; and at the end of that inquiry, when that Committee should have reported, the Government would be able to see whether any, and, if so, what alteration in the Council was required. It did not seem desirable to endanger this Bill, which contained many valuable features, by interfering with this subject of the Medical Council. This measure could not be
  1726
  considered a Party measure in any particular sense, and he looked forward to receiving from his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Ripon)—than whom no one was more competent to give advice, because he had great experience in dealing with this subject—his valuable assistance in achieving what was the object of all—the maintenance of a high standard of professional reputation. He did not despair of the solution of what seemed to be a very difficult question, if the subject were, as he could not doubt it would be, fairly considered by their Lordships. He begged to present the Bill, and to move that it be read a first time.
  Bill to amend the Medical Act, 1858—Presented (The LORD PRESIDENT).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he had paid close attention to the statement of his noble Friend the Lord President, and should be happy to give him all the assistance in his power in passing the Bill. As his noble Friend was well aware, he was strongly impressed with the conviction that the most urgent reform in respect of medical affairs in this country in the interest of the public was the establishment of a single Medical Body for the three divisions of the United Kingdom, through which, and through which alone, persons should be able to get their names on the register. He understood his noble Friend intended to adopt that principle, instead of leaving it optional to the various Medical Bodies in England, Scotland, and Ireland to establish one Conjoint Board of Examination in each country. That he held to be the first object of medical reform at the present time; and he, for one, should approach the consideration of the Bill with every desire to give assistance to his noble Friend in passing it. It seemed to him that something might be said in favour of those provisions, which were inserted in the Bill of last year at his suggestion, but were modified in this Bill; but he should be ready to lay aside his own opinions on minor points, and he only hoped and trusted that others would do the same. With respect to the other part of the statement of his noble Friend, he was not surprised he had thought it wise to make a concession on the subject of the composition of the General Medical Council. He could fully bear his testimony to the correctness of the statement with regard

  1727
  to the ability of the members of that Council, their high standing and reputation, and the excellent manner in which they had discharged their duties. But there was no doubt there did exist, and had existed many years, a large amount of opinion in the Medical Profession that the Profession, as a Profession, ought to have a more direct share of representation on that Council. He did not desire to express an opinion on it at the present moment, except that when one saw a great body of the Profession entertain that opinion, it was quite fair and right that the subject should be investigated by an impartial inquiry before a Parliamentary Committee. All he trusted was that his noble Friend on one side, and those who were the cause of the failure of his own Bill of 1870 on the other, would take care that a question altogether distinct from the main object of the Bill should not produce a failure of the present measure. If the Committee, after considering the subject, should report that a change in the Medical Council was desirable, he hoped it would be carefully considered; but that no side interests of any kind would be allowed to interfere with the success of the Bill. He hoped there would be no delay with the second reading, as he thought it important the Bill should be speedily taken to the other House and considered there.
  Bill read 1ª; and to be read 2ª on Tuesday the 11 th of March next. (No. 16.)

RAILWAYS—WRIT OF ELEGIT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSrose to draw the attention of the Chairman of Committees to the statement in The Times of 6th of February, that Mr. Terry, a contractor, under a writ of elegit, obtained judgment before the Tinder-Sheriff of Oxfordshire against the Banbury and Cheltenham Railway, and that the jury had delivered 15 miles of land, of which they were possessed in that county for the construction of their line, in execution to the plaintiff; and asked the noble Earl, Whether the Parliamentary powers, under which such lands were acquired, in his opinion, allowed such a proceeding? It seemed to him that this case involved a very important principle. Railway Companies came to that House every year for com-
  1728
  pulsory powers to acquire land, and he thought their Lordships might reasonably ask that those from whom the land was thus taken should have some guarantee that its use should not be diverted from the purpose which Parliament had sanctioned. The popular opinion that a railway was the Queen's highway did not seem always to hold good, and especially before it was opened. He did not know if a writ of elegit, which gave the legal but not the actual possession, made any difference. He supposed it was impossible to expect the whole of the capital for carrying out those works to be found when the Company came to that House for their powers; but he thought a miscarriage of the intention of Parliament such as this should be impossible. Perhaps he ought to apologize for addressing the Question to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees instead of to Her Majesty's Government; but he thought, from his long experience, the noble Earl would be able to give the House a very valuable opinion on the matter.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that while not professing to be able to give a legal opinion on the Question asked, he did not think the statement in The Times was strictly accurate. The position of affairs, he believed, was this. Mr. Terry carried on the work intrusted to him in so unsatisfactory a manner that the Company discharged him and took the execution of the work into their own hands, and let the work and materials on the line to other contractors. The question of what Mr. Terry was entitled to receive for the work he had actually done was referred to arbitration. The award had been made, and Mr. Terry was found entitled to £5,000. The money was not paid, and Mr. Terry proceeded to take possession of the land by a writ of elegit. The finding on that writ was that the Company had acquired the land between the fencing to which the writ applied. Mr. Terry could get nothing off the land, there being no chattels on it belonging to the Company, and really he had gained nothing by his movement. It was perfectly obvious that whatever he had got was subject to the conditions under which the land was held by the Company under their Act of Parliament. The landowner, who had not been paid for his land, had the first claim, and next to him the persons

  1729
  to be paid were the debenture holders. He presumed that if the railway was abandoned the land would revert to the original owners. He could give no further information.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.