Sitting of 13 June 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Lighting by Electricity [No. 224].
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order—Select Committee—Special Report—East Indian Railway [No. 226].
Third Reading—Lancaster Gas*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common)* [207].
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Cartworth)*.
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue [150].

QUESTIONS.
  NAVY—THE LATE MR. W. FROUDE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. E. J. REED (for Mr. B. SAMUELSON)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether a suitable acknowledgment will be made to the family of the late Mr. W. Froude, F.R.S., of his great and gratuitous services to the Navy in investigating and determining the proper form of ships and propellers; and, whether arrangements will be made for carrying on the laboratory in which Mr. Froude conducted his investigations?
    MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, he had written to the hon. Gentleman who had given Notice of the Question asking him to postpone it. He could only say, at the present moment, that he cordially reciprocated the expression of acknowledgment due to Mr. Froude for the great and eminent services he had rendered.

    GENERAL NATIONAL FUND FOR RELIEF OF FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS, SAILORS, &c—QUESTION.
    GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the desirability of a permanent general national fund being established for the relief of widows and orphans of soldiers, sailors, and marines who die in consequence of wounds and injuries received in the Services, and for increasing, under certain circumstances, the pensions awarded to men on his charge; and, whether the Government would recommend Her Majesty to issue a fresh Commission to the Commissioners' Patriotic Fund for the purpose of administering to a fund, such as above proposed, to take the place of those special funds to meet cases calling for unusual sympathy?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the first part of the Question, I have to say that I have frequently considered, whether it would be possible to establish a general national fund for the purpose named by the hon. and gallant Member; but I have never seen my way to take any practical steps in that direction without the fear of interfering prejudicially with charitable institutions which are doing their work well. With regard to the second part of the Ques-

    1807
    tion, steps are being taken for the extension of the powers of the Commissioners' Patriotic Fund; but I am not able at this moment to say when the supplementary charter will be granted. It would, in any ease, not be advisable to extend indefinitely such a supplemental charter. It might be extended beyond its present purposes; but it would not be wise to extend it indefinitely for all times.

    ARMY REGULATION ACT—CASHIERED PURCHASE OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
    GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, If, in the event of a purchase officer being cashiered or dismissed from the service by sentence of court I martial, Her Majesty has the power to direct that he be paid by the Army Purchase Commissioners the same amount to which he would be entitled on retirement of his own free will?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, to be strictly accurate, the award of the Army Purchase Commissioners would be made under the Act of 1871, and not under the direction of Her Majesty. If a purchase officer is dismissed the Service, or cashiered under sentence of court martial, the court has power to order that he shall forfeit all pecuniary interest in the value of his commission; but if, by the grace of Her Majesty, he is gazetted out of the Army, he may be permitted to receive the value of his commission if the Commissioners award him such value. In the only case which has occurred they have done so. I may add that this applies to the regulation value only, but as to over-regulation value, I am informed that no case has arisen; but it would be for the decision of the Commissioners, and they would probably take into consideration the terms of The Gazette.

  FISHERY LAWS—VIOLATION BY STEAM TRAWLERS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been directed to alleged infractions of the Fishery Laws on the part of steam trawlers off the eastern coasts of Scotland and the north of England, and to the want of efficient means for enforcing the law in those waters; and, whether he is prepared to
    1808
    take any measures for the better enforcing of the Fishery Laws by despatching a gunboat to the northeastern coast or otherwise?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, my attention has been called within the last few days to alleged infractions of the Fishery Laws by steam trawlers, and I have called for a report from the captain of the Coastguard ship at Hull on the subject. It is open to the owners of any boats whose nets are injured, in breach of the Fishery Laws, themselves to prosecute the parties in fault. A gunboat will be despatched to watch the proceedings of these trawlers if it is necessary to do so; but it is doubtful whether the Admiralty have any legal power to interfere.

  MINES (COAL) REGULATION ACT, 1872—INSPECTION OF COAL MINES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to amend his instructions to the Inspectors of Coal Mines which as at present framed allow a certificated manager to have several mines under his charge, and authorise indefinite periods of absence from the mine on the part of such manager, while the Act itself, in section 26, requires "every mine to be under the control and daily supervision of a manager?"
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, this is a very important point to which my hon. Friend has called the attention of the House; but what I wish to impress upon him, in the first place, is this—that I have made no change in the instructions that have existed from the time of the passing of the Act of 1872. The principle of the instructions to which my hon. Friend refers is not new at all, but is copied verbatim from the instructions that were drawn up in 1872. I, of course, am not responsible for them; but I presume the Secretary of State drew them up for the purpose of insuring that the provisions of the Act should be carried out in the most practical way. The conditions necessarily vary, and the arrangements may vary also according to the size and other circumstances of the mine, but must in each case be such as to secure the real effectual supervision of the every-day

    1809
    working of the mine. If they fail to do so, the Secretary of State would feel it his duty at once to take steps to interfere. As a doubt has been raised, I shall cause the Question of the hon. Member and my answer to be sent to the Inspectors, in order to show that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State to interfere with the actual carrying out of the Act of Parliament in its full meaning.

    ISLAND OF CYPRUS—PUNISHMENT OF PRIESTS.—QUESTION.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any authentic information with regard to the alleged infliction of a degrading punishment on two Greek priests in Cyprus by the orders of the English authorities in the island; and, whether, if such a punishment were inflicted, it has received the subsequent sanction of the Foreign Office?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that, according to the information at the Foreign Office, two priests were sentenced in due course of law by the local Court at Famagosta—one of them to seven days, and the other to one mouth's imprisonment. We have asked for a Report upon the subject, and that Report is, I believe, now on its way home. With regard to the second part of the Question, I do not think it is likely that the Foreign Office, unless they find that some irregularity has taken place, will interfere either to sanction or disapprove of the sentence that has been carried out in pursuance of the judgment of a Court of Law.

    PRISONS (IRELAND)—RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will give a Return of the average numbers of the different religious denominations in the several gaols of Ireland, with the salaries of the chaplains?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I believe, Sir, the Returns to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be found included in those promised the other day on the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford County (Mr. Errington).

    ILLEGAL LOTTERIES.—QUESTION.
    MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to an illegal lottery that has been extensively advertised to take place in Dublin, on the 26th Juno, under the superintendence of the High Sheriff and other magistrates; if he is aware that the Law against lotteries makes no exception in favour of lotteries for good objects, those for the City of Glasgow Bank and the West of England Bank charities; having been at once suppressed by the authorities; and, if Irish magistrates are to be allowed to set this law at defiance, or if he will take stops to have this illegal lottery also suppressed?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. GIBSON): Sir, my attention has been called by the Question to the bazaar and drawing of prizes advertised to be held in Dublin on the 26th instant. I am aware that the law against the advertising and publishing of lotteries does not purport to make any exceptions. I need hardly say that Irish High Sheriffs and magistrates enjoy no special immunities, and are in the same position as Scotch and English Sheriffs and magistrates. I think it is very probable that some of the gentlemen whose names appear in this advertisement did not read it attentively; and, indeed, I should not be surprised if some had not read it at all. The Crown and Treasury Solicitors in Ireland will, however, inquire into the circumstances of the advertisement referred to. I may add that I think lotteries for large sums of money, or for articles convertible into large sums of money, are open to much objection, and I hope that the public attention which has been called to this matter will be productive of good results.

    SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—OVERTURES OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have laid before Parliament all the information which has been received concerning the overtures for peace which have been made by Cetewavo?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, in reply to a previous Question from the hon. Baronet, I think on Mon-

    1811
    day last, I informed the House of all I knew as to the nature of the latest overtures made by Cetywayo and the terms of the reply sent by Lord Chelmsford. In a despatch received from Sir Bartle Frere within the last few days, I believe there are some inclosures relating to earlier overtures, which will be presented to the House on the first opportunity.

    ARMY—THE FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE—VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, men of the first Class Army Reserve, who may volunteer to rejoin the Colours, can be accepted; and, if so, whether any steps have been or are about to be taken to make this fact generally known; and, if, on the other hand, it is not competent for such volunteers to rejoin under the provisions of "The Enlistment Act, 1870," he proposes to introduce a short Bill amending that Act.
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, at an earlier period of the Session, when the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) asked a similar Question, I was obliged to answer that, as I was then advised, many of the First Class Army Reserve men could not volunteer to join the Colours except for a period of six months. The question was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and they had a further consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and, I believe, with other legal authorities; and it is now held that the section of the Act which was supposed to be doubtful does admit of those men volunteering to join the Colours. It is, therefore, proposed to take advantage of this interpretation to a limited extent. It is proposed to make this known by an Army Circular, which I hope will be issued in the course of a few days; and I may add, the number of men to which it is proposed to limit the volunteering will be such as still to keep the numbers within the total provided for by Parliament at the commencement of the year, so that it will not be necessary to ask for any Supplementary Vote.

    COAL MINES—THE DINAS COLLIERY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it has been reported to him by
    1812
    the legal gentleman appointed to watch the coroner's inquest in respect to the loss of over 60 lives by an explosion of fire damp in the Dinas Colliery, South I Wales, that the jury had found that though the manager had been deprived of his certificate for gross negligence and incompetency, after a thorough judicial investigation, he had still been continued as manager by the owner or agent, or both; and, if he intends to take any steps to punish the party or parties, that committed an act which set at defiance the decision of a regularly constituted court?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Coroner's jury had only just given their verdict in the case of this explosion, and he had not yet received the Report of the legal gentleman who attended the inquest on behalf of the Secretary of State. The course that it was proposed to take was this. If, on the Report of that gentleman, it appeared that legal proceedings ought to be taken against any person connected with the mine, he would at once proceed to take them. But there was one important point connected with the case, and that was that the explosion happened so long since, and the Coroner's jury had been so long in finishing the inquiry and giving their verdict, that the time limited by the statute, within which proceedings under the Act could be taken, had expired. In order to prevent such an occurrence in future, and to guard against those cases where, no death resulting, there was no Coroner's inquest, he proposed to introduce a short Bill to allow the Secretary of State to order a special inquiry in the case of mining accidents, in the same manner as he was empowered under the Act of 1875 to order special inquiries in case of accidents from explosive substances—apower which had been of so much benefit.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF RYAN.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the fact that a man named Ryan, who at the last Commission in Dublin was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for causing the death of his wife, has recently been released by order of the Government, although an alleged accomplice of his is to be tried on that charge at the approaching Commission; and, if he can state the

    1813
    grounds on which Ryan has been released?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, it is the case that a man named Ryan, convicted of manslaughter, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in Dublin; but after reference to the Judge before whom the ease was tried, he was released by order of the Government, on the ground of ill-health. As to the case of Collins, I understand it was one in which the man was charged with an offence of the same character; but, as a matter of fact, not with being an accomplice with the other prisoner, and he applied to have his trial postponed. That application was acceded to, and the trial, I believe, stands for the next Sessions.

    PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Education Estimates will be taken?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the Government proposed on Monday to take Supply—the Army Estimates; that, as he had said before, in consequence of the peculiar position of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, they proposed to devote the other days of the week at their disposal to that measure; and that, therefore, they would not be able next week to take the Education Estimates, as to which, however, due Notice would be given.
    MR. CALLANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the convenience of Irish Members, When the Irish Estimates and the Scotch University Estimates will be taken?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Not next week. I cannot say exactly when; but duo Notice will be given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

METROPOLIS—LOCAL TAXATION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the
  1814
  great increase of the Local Taxation of the Metropolis, while the Vestries foiled to carry out any sufficient sanitary arrangements; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the powers of the Vestries and their administration of the funds at their disposal, said, that some of our most eminent statesmen had called attention to the government of the Metropolis. The noble Lord the present Prime Minister had made many eloquent speeches on the subject of the sanitary condition of the Metropolis; and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had said, in 1858, that he anticipated the time when the principle of self-government would be applied in its fullest extent to the Metropolis. The question had, too, engaged the attention of Royal Commissions and Select Committees, and Bills had been introduced on the subject. As a matter for legislation it had engaged the attention of such men as Sir George Grey, Sir Cornewall Lewis, and Mr. Buxton. The last to direct attention to it with a view to legislation was the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who urged the claims it had on the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The necessity for a reform in the government of the Metropolis was increasing every year. The Registrar General informed the country that the population of the Metropolis was increasing at the rate of 75,000 per annum, and that, during the last seven years, 150,000; additional houses had been built within its boundaries. As Mr. Horton, in his valuable pamphlet, pointed out, the Metropolis was divided into 37 districts for the purpose of registration of births; into 56 districts for the duties of the Building Act; into 19 divisions for police purposes; into 13 County Court districts; into 15 Militia districts; and additional divisions for Inland Revenue, postal, and gas and water and Parliamentary purposes; so that a map of London must have 14 or 15 different boundaries to represent in each area the controlling powers. With this mere unorganized accretion of corporations, boards, vestries, commissioners, magistrates, and so forth, the administration of this Metropolis might very fitly be described in the words with which John Bunyan depicted the valley of the Shadow of Death. It was, he said, "Every whit dreadful, being utterly without order." Comparing the govern-

  1815
  ment of the parish of Marylebone with that of Westminster, it would he found that the population of each was about the same. Marylebone parish collected £194,036; Westminster City, £194,031. Marylebone parish was managed by one vestry, and its administrative expenses were under £8,000 per annum; while the five boards of local management in Westminster cost nearly £20,000. These five boards employed 21 clerks and vestry clerks, six surveyors, four solicitors, nine officers of health, six inspectors of nuisances—all these officers being employed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The gas and water supplies of the Metropolis were under the control of different Companies, who were hostile to each other. The result was that the water supply cost, according to the Registrar General, £1,283,000 a-year; whereas he asserted that it could be provided for £470,000 a-year. Moreover, each public gas lamp in London cost £4 10 s. a-year, whilst in Manchester the cost was only £1 5s. Mr. Frith said the Gas Companies pretended that they had a right to a dividend of £10 per cent, and that in any scheme for purchase they must be paid at that rate, and that Londoners were precluded by legislation from supplying themselves. Now, the Gas Companies had funds which they called capital, which had never been investigated. And it seemed it was not capital at all; but on this the consumer was charged 10 per cent, and was even now paying 10 per cent, on the former ruinous competition. It was distinctly asserted that the Companies made £400,000 net profit on every £1,000,000 capital which Parliament permitted them to raise. The management of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he admitted, was admirable, and everything had improved since it was established in 1853, when there were 10,500 officials in London and over 150 vestries raising rates; but that was no reason why householders and ratepayers should be subjected to unnecessarily heavy burdens. He did not say that there was peculation; but, under the existing system, the ratepayers paid in some instances at least a third more than they ought to be called upon to do. It had been shown that, the delay in traffic occasioned by the accumulation of snow, mud, and dirt
  1816
  in our streets involved a loss of at least £500,000. The condition of the fire brigade also demanded investigation. Whilst in Paris, with a population of 2.000,000, and in New York, with a population of 1,300,000, there were respectively 1,500 and 2,350 firemen, London, with her 4,000,000 of population, had only 406 firemen. There was a complete want of proper market accommodation owing to the absurd restrictions which prevented markets being established within, he believed, seven miles of the City. These and other evils he attributed to the system of vestries. The vestries fought amongst each other on questions as to the varying merits of wood pavement and macadam. Inconsequence of the vestry system, with all its anomalies, the state of the sewers and of the pavements in many districts was most unsatisfactory. He believed that one of the greatest evils of the present system was connected with the auditing of the vestry accounts. Some parishes were undoubtedly well managed in this respect; but he was credibly informed, for the information was based on a published document, that in some cases the auditors could neither read nor write. [A laugh.] That seemed an incredible assertion; but he made it on an authority that was open to any Member of the House, and if it was inaccurate he was not responsible. That document stated that no auditor could be relied upon carefully to examine parish accounts unless he could read and write, and that there wore instances of the appointment of auditors who possessed neither qualification. The vestries made rates on the parishes, and declined to make satisfactory reports showing how the money they raised was expended. The vestries, however, were not slow in demanding that the action of other bodies should be inquired into. It was charming to find that they were fully alive to the faults of others, and anxious to see them corrected, although they must not be touched themselves. He held in his hand a printed paper headed "Relief of Ratepayers' Burdens," and it purported to be a
  "Statement in favour of inquiry into the administration of funds in possession of the City Guilds."
  It went on to say that—
  "The vestries of London were recently invited, in pursuance of a resolution adopted by

  1817
  the St. James's Vestry, to join in a Memorial to the Government, urging the necessity for inquiry into the condition and management of the property and charities of the several Metropolitan parishes and City Guilds."
  The resolution above referred to ran thus:—
  "That the several parishes in the Metropolis, the Corporation of the City of London, the Livery Companies of London, and other public bodies, now possess largo funds available for educational purposes, for the relief of the poor, and for other public objects; and that, in view of the constantly-increasing burdens imposed on the ratepayers of the Metropolis by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the vestries, and the London School Board, in the carrying out of their varied and increasing powers, it is desirable for a full inquiry to be made, under the authority of a Royal Commission, into the character and circumstances of any such funds, in order to ascertain how far they may be rightfully directed to the relief of such ratepayers, and to all or any of the objects served by the several governing bodies and rating authorities of the Metropolis."
  Now, the property of the City Guilds had been bequeathed for particular purposes; and although its value had, no doubt, greatly increased, it was doubtful whether that fact alone would justify an interference with the destination of that property. However that might be, the case of the vestries was very different. There the money spent was taken directly from the ratepayers; its amount was constantly increasing; and there could be no question of the right of the public to know and inquire into the manner in which it was disbursed. He now came to the charges which were made against the vestries. He would quote to the House some extracts taken from a printed paper issued by the Paddington Ratepayers' Association. If the statements there contained were incorrect, he was not responsible for them. This document said—
  "There is a growing suspicion that the manner in which assessments are made, and rates expended, in some quarters calls for special investigation, and we believe that nothing short of such a step will give satisfaction to the public."
  It continued—
  "People will want to get at the particulars lying behind the gross amounts which are tabulated, and act. occasionally at least, as their own auditors; and if Parliamentary assistance be not afforded them for that purpose, it may be incumbent on them in their several parishes to appoint a local commission from their number to scrutinize vouchers, so that what is going on behind the scenes may he proclaimed on the housetops."
  1818
  The paper went on to remark that, while pauperism and crime in the Metropolis were rapidly on the decline, there was no corresponding diminution in the burden of the rates; and that the inquiries made by independent residents of Paddington had revealed wasteful expenditure under various heads. It then added—
  "The most entertaining and instructive portion is that which comes under the general rate account, and relates to 'refreshments.' The following particulars belong to one of many bills of the same description:—'September 25.—Finance and Assessment Committees:—18 luncheons, £3 3s.; 17 dinners, £7 13 s.; ale and stout, 7s.; sherry, £1 4s.; port, 18 s.; hock, £4 10 s.; cigars, 12 s.; and dessert, 25 s.'"
  These were among the items of one dinner for the gentlemen who were spending the money of the ratepayers; and other refreshment bills wore much of the same character. He asked whether those things were creditable to the local government of a great capital. Mr. Frith, in his admirable work on Municipal London, said that the government of the Metropolis was utterly without system, regularity, or order; that the ratings all differed, that there was no uniformity, and that in all things there was confusion and complication. Certain facts were very significant. In the last 19 years the vestries and district boards had not expended 18 d. a-head in sanitary measures. The City had eight inspectors of nuisances, and St. Pancras had only one. The inspector for Chelsea reported that one-third of the houses infringed the sanitary regulations, and yet nothing was done to remedy the abuse. The cost of making roads in Mile End was £364 a-mile, while in Marylebone it was £1,200 a-mile. Again, the cost of watering streets was in Greenwich £50 a-mile; in Limehouse, £50; in Hackney, £15; in Mile End, £15; and in Whitechapel, £11. The cartage of dust and mud cost in St. Martin's, £70 a-mile; in Paddington, £07; in Greenwich, £65; in Lime-house, £23; and in Mile End, £ 19. On several previous occasions Bills relating to the government of the Metropolis had been introduced in that House; but they had not been passed. One measure was introduced by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who had done so much to bring this matter under the notice of the public; but he did not see how it was pos-

  1819
  sible for any private Member to carry a Bill for the better management of the Metropolis. The City of London was, n many respects, most admirably managed, and his noble Friend proposed to extend the area of the City. That, of course, was a plan open to many objections. Then there was the idea of making the Parliamentary boroughs separate Municipalities with a supreme Council. Earl Grey, who always took great interest in this question, proposed, not a Royal or Parliamentary Commismission, but a Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, partly of Ministers of the Crown, partly of the late Ministers. A Report by such a Committee would be invaluable. It would be brought under the attention of Parliament much more clearly, and would be more likely to command attention. This, his Lordship stated, was the course followed with the Bill in 1850 for extending representative government to the Australian Colonies. To-day he only asked the Home Secretary to appoint a Board of Auditors for the investigation of the accounts of all these vestries. If it should be shown by the inequality of charges in the accounts that the Metropolis was not well governed, then it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the bettor government of London. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers of the Vestries of the Metropolis, and their administration of the funds at their disposal,"—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYhad understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight to say that all he asked the Home Secretary to do was to appoint a certain number of Auditors to examine the accounts of these vestries. This, however, was not the object aimed at by the hon. Gentleman's Motion. The hon. Gentleman condemned the general management of the Metropolis, yet he seemed content to
  1820
  accept only a modified means of remedy. He went further than the language of his hon. Friend, being of opinion that the general management of the Metropolis was simply abominable. It was a disgrace to such a large town as this that there should be so little uniformity and so little good management in the general arrangements. Still, he believed the vestries did their duty extremely well for certain purposes. What was required was a Central Body to be placed over them all. The Board of Works had not supplied the requirement, although he admitted that that body fulfilled its functions admirably in many respects. The town of Paris was managed quite differently from London. There were eight or 10 different departments; but they wore all centralized in one department, called the Department of the Seine. As to the subject of fires, they were strictly part of police duties. What were the duties of the police, if they were not for the protection of life and property? The police could render essential service in a fire long before the brigade arrived. It was a discreditable thing in the management of London that the fire brigade should be under the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not say the Board did not do its best, but it had not the power. There was divided authority, and this was the case also with regard to the cleansing of the streets.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had done good service in calling attention to this important question—the proper government, or, rather, the mis-government, of the Metropolis. the mis-government was so patent that it was not necessary to dwell on the subject. They had got the vestries, but there was no control over them. His hon. Friend had pointed to the City of London. They had controlling power there, and things were bettor managed. On one occasion, when he complained to the Metropolitan Board of Works about a part of London where a terrible stench prevailed, owing to the streets not being-watered, as was believed, he was told that the Board had no power. This seemed to point to one of three things—that his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ought to have more power given him; that he ought to be merged in some other power; or that he ought to be

  1821
  abolished altogether. Clearly he ought not to be left in his present state of impotence. He (Lord Elcho) did not think the Committee proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) would he very useful; but the hon. Gentleman had made a very good practical suggestion—namely, that the Government should appoint Auditors to look after the accounts of the vestries. He would suggest that the Motion should he withdrawn, and that the Government should consent to the appointment of Auditors. They heard of the bottles of hock, champagne, and other wines consumed by the vestrymen. That alone required an audit, and the practical solution would be for the Government to appoint an audit of the different district accounts. It might be that the stories one heard were not true; it might be that there was no jobbery; and, in that case, it would be better for the vestries that Auditors should be appointed. If it turned out, however, that there had boon waste, they would have good ground for legislation.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the subject raised by his hon. Friend was a very important one, and one in which they were all interested; but he hardly thought the House would be prepared to appoint a Select Committee, such as was asked for, neither did he think the suggestion for the appointment of Auditors would command general assent. It was admitted that the Metropolis Management Act had effected a change for the better. A great deal had been said about the shortcomings of the vestries; but what wore the district boards but a combination of parish vestries? Under the Act to which he referred, no less than 46 parishes wore combined in 12 district boards, and a substantial change for the better was, no doubt, the result. He was not prepared to defend the vestries from all the charges made against them. Their powers were, to a certain extent, limited. In some respects they exercised their power very well, and in other respects the shortcomings of the vestries were considerable. As to gas and water, those were matters of so serious a nature that they had not been left to the vestries, but had been taken in hand by Parliament. Measures had been passed providing for the water supply and lighting of the Metropolis. A great deal might be said as to whether
  1822
  the provisions of those Acts were adequate or not. It would be monstrous to enter into the question of the water supply in connection with the present Motion. The question raised by the present Motion was one of very great importance; but he should regard the extension of the City jurisdiction or the establishment of a new Centralized Body for control of the affairs of the Metropolis with some suspicion, and to establish such a body might prove to be a step in the wrong direction. He had taken some trouble to ascertain what had been the increased cost of the Metropolitan taxation, and he found it had not been so considerable as some persons supposed. He would, with the permission of the House, state what the increase of that taxation had been during the last 10 years. In 1869 the vestries spent £1,789,281, including payments to the Metropolitan Board of Works. In 1878, or 10 years later, the vestries spent £3,162,771; thus showing an increase in 10 years of about £1,400,000. But while the rateable value of the Metropolis in 1869 was £16,258,000, in 1878 it was£23,470,000, or an increase of £7,212,000. While the net increase of the vestry expenditure in those 10 years was £1,000,000, the following were the principal items of which that increase was composed:—Upon streets and highways the increase was more than £500,000, upon lighting it was £37,000, on payment to the Metropolitan Board of Works £131,000—the vestries now paid £500,000 out of their rates to the Metropolitan Board—and they now paid £500,000 to the School Board rates. The salaries to officers were £46,000 higher than in 1869; when they amounted to £71,000; while, in 1878, they amounted to £117,000. Loans and interest in 1869 amounted to £174,700, and in 1878 to £263,000, or a difference of £88,000. He did not think that the Government could do of their own accord what his hon. Friend asked, and he did not know that the House would support the Secretary of State if he made such a proposition.
  SIR ANDEEW LUSKasked the House to look at this matter in a fair and broad light. Charges had been made against the vestries; but it should be remembered that vestries wore elected under an Act of Parliament, and by the same class of persons as elected Members of

  1823
  Parliament, and if they did not do their work well, the members who composed them might be put out, and others elected in their place. People, no doubt, complained very much about vestries; but so they did about the Members of that House. The thing to do was to change them, and put in better men. he challenged hon. Gentlemen who spoke about the health of the Metropolis to compare it with that of any other city in the world. London was the largest city in the world, and among cities in point of health it stood perfectly unique. What was the use of coming down upon these poor vestrymen and talking about gas and water. The vestries had no more power over the gas and water of the Metropolis than hon. Gentlemen themselves had. When his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) attempted to take up the water supply he was most violently opposed by the Water Companies, and it would be the same with the gas. It was all the Companies, and if you touched them they would say you were attacking private property. No doubt, the rates were heavy; the School Board rate, for example; but the vestries could not help that. Parliament made the law, and the vestries had to carry it out and to find the money. So it was with the main drainage, the fire brigade, the police rate—which was now very heavy—and so on. It was most ungenerous, unhandsome, and undignified to say—"Oh, these are small men, tradesmen." If they were small men and tradesmen, it was all the more to their credit that they gave a great deal of time to the public good. Hon. Gentlemen talked of the City of London, and spoke of it as a model. He knew something about the City of London, and, no doubt, it was very well managed; but it was very expensively managed. In the City of London there was more to pay than in the Metropolis generally. A good deal had been said about the state of the streets; but Oxford Street was as nicely kept and as clean a street as any in the world, and they had only to go to Marylebone to see streets as well watered, lighted, and cleaned as any in Birmingham, Glasgow, or any other city. It was easy to find fault with the government of the City of London; but it was of such enormous extent, and the interests involved were so vast and so diver-
  1824
  sified, that he was not surprised that all Ministries were particularly chary in attempting to interfere with it. He had felt it only fair to say a word in favour of the vestries, which had a great deal of hard work to do, and, upon the whole, they did it in an admirable manner. As a rule, they had nothing to do with the expense incurred for luncheons and dinners and wines. The blame, if any, on that score attached to the Guardians; but Boards of Guardians were not peculiar to London, and why blame vestries? There was no mystery or secret about their proceedings, for their meetings were more open than the House of Commons. He quite admitted that the rates were increasing and becoming more onerous, and they could not be too cautious in imposing new burdens.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, that two years ago he gave Notice of a Motion for a Committee to inquire into vestry management, and especially into the paving, lighting, watering, and scavengering of the streets and houses of London. He had been unable to bring forward that Motion; but if he found encouragement from other Members of the House, he should be inclined to urge upon the House the desirability of appointing such a Committee. He did not think that a single word of blame or censure had been cast on the Metropolitan Board of Works, and very little, indeed, had been said against the vestries. It was not at all necessary to speak offensively or in a hostile manner against the vestries. As the hon. Baronet who had just sat down said, those gentlemen took upon themselves a vast amount of work for no remuneration, and they got a good deal of abuse, especially from people outside, who did not know how difficult their duties were. But he should despair of obtaining any improvement if they acted on the views of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk), whose maxim seemed to be, quieta non movere, and who appeared to think that the government of London, as it was, was the best possible government that could be, and that it could not be improved without additional expense and taxation. He (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) was not of that opinion; but thought that in one or two respects there was a loud call for improvement and investigation. He referred especially to the watering and scavengering of the streets.

  1825
  As compared with Paris or other European capitals, the watering of the streets of London was not what it ought to be. A friend of his, who took a great interest in the St. George's Vestry, had told him that the watering and scavengering of the streets of London was practically in the hands of a close monopoly. There were five or six men who tendered in turns to the various parishes. Ostensibly the competition was open; but the contractors had entered into a secret arrangement among themselves by which the contract was always relegated to the same hands. On Sundays the streets were not watered as on other days of the week; and when they considered that the masses of the population took their holiday on that day and visited the parks in immense numbers, they would at once see that on allot Sunday afternoon, with the wind blowing, the state of the streets of London was a reproach to them. What was the remedy for this? He feared there was none, for the contractors would not allow their carts to go out unless in charge of their own men, and they would not send out their men; and as they would not do the work, no one could do the work which they refused to do. The watering of the streets of London was simply discreditable, and the same thing might be said of the scavengering. It was notorious that there was a regular system of blackmailing in connection with scavengering, and that no one could got his ash-pit cleansed without submitting to it. The result of this was absolute discomfort, uncleanliness, and unhealthiness, which they wore powerless to remove. It was all very well for powerful people, who could make their voices heard, to say that things were as good as they could be; but it was the poor and the small householders who were really affected. Without bringing any charge of corruption or abuse of authority against the vestries, there was certainly ground for inquiry whether it was not possible to bring about a better state of things. Without any hostility either to the Board of Works or to the vestries, he should, as he had stated, be inclined, if he found any encouragement, to renew his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry with respect to the two special points of watering and scavengering the streets.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRobserved, that the hon. Member for the Isle of
  1826
  Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had introduced the subject in a very broad way, alluding to water supply, gas supply, sanitary arrangements, and so forth; but ended with a Motion which was limited to an inquiry into the question of the vestries and their duties. The great evil in regard to London was that the local government was very defective. Great works were distributed into the hands of a large number of different bodies, and there was no unity. He was, therefore, prepared to vote against the Motion, because it would take away their power to deal with the question in a more satisfactory way, especially when they remembered the Home Secretary's statement that the subject was so large that it would be the duty of the Government to take it up and consider it in all its aspects. But the Motion would throw the inquiry on the vestries, and would remove the responsibility from Parliament. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) in the satisfaction he had expressed with the existing state of things. With regard to the water supply, for instance, in some places it was good; but he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) lived in a district which was supplied with water into which 750,000 people poured their excrements before he could drink it. They had been told that there would be another Session of the present Parliament. It would he a capital thing if the Government would deal with this question next Session. He would, therefore, suggest that as they were now getting into a state of things which so operated in the House as to produce the passing of but one Act a Session, the question of improvement in Metropolitan administration should be undertaken next year by the Government, which might thus signalize the last year of their reign by passing at least one comprehensive measure for the promotion of the health of the people. Should the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion, the House would be left free to consider a large scheme for Metropolitan local government.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that they all grumbled at the cost of Metropolitan rates; but it was but fair to give the devil his due, and look at the results which they got for the rates. The Metropolitan rates also, he might say, had not been much raised for the

  1827
  last 10 years. For instance, the total rating of Kensington, from the year 1870 to 1879, averaged 3s. 5d. in the pound; whereas, in the present year, the rating amounted to only 3s. 5d., a decrease of 4d. on the whole, although the charge for the Metropolitan School Board had increased from nothing to bd., and the Metropolitan Board rate had also increased. He differed from the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) as to the constitution of the vestries. He thought it required improvement. There was a want of a head and of responsible officers known to the public. As to the complaint that the management of parochial affairs was in the hands of small tradesmen, he thought that gentlemen had themselves to blame in that respect, because it was owing to their negligence that such was the case. If people wished to improve the management of their affairs, they should take a more active part themselves.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that this year he had been elected a vestryman for the City of Westminster, and he had been induced to become a member of the Board, not from any motive of public spirit, but from a feeling of curiosity. One heard so much of the working of these bodies that he desired to see the machinery from the inside. No doubt, the majority of those who composed the vestries were small tradesmen; but, considering the nature of the duties they had to discharge, he was not surprised that a great many gentlemen did not care to serve on them. They had to administer the greater portion of their funds under the direction of the Metropolitan Board, and the amount over which they themselves had control was very small. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) had stated that the dust was badly laid in the streets on Sundays; and he might say that he was a member of a Street Cleansing Committee for the City of Westminster, and, therefore, he could say that how the matter was done was thus—The contracts were drawn in general terms, the contractors undertaking to keep the streets in proper order under the vestry. The vestry could be set in motion by any ratepayer who chose to communicate with them; and when communicated with they summoned the contractor to produce his books, to show how often he
  1828
  had watered certain streets; and if he was found guilty of neglect he was blown up. He himself had made a complaint that a particular road was not watered properly on the Sunday, and his complaint was attended to, and since then the state of things had been much better. If any hon. Member felt aggrieved in reference to the watering of the streets on Sundays, provided that hon. Member lived in his (Mr. J. R. Yorke's) district, and provided, also, that he would write a letter, he (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would, of course, do his best to see that the matter was attended to. About three autumns ago he was in London for a month, and the condition of the water was at that time intolerable, and it was extremely unpleasant to the nose. The water, he believed, came from the Chelsea Company. He took a sample to Professor Franklin and asked him to analyze it. The Professor told him that he had already analyzed water from the same Company, and showed him a long tube containing some of it, in which he noticed a large number of unpleasant-looking bodies in suspension. He asked would there be any use in filtering the water, but was told that it would be useless, because all the really deleterious matters were to be found in solution, and not in suspension; and, in fact, it was only a question between the thick and the thin turtle. He asked the Professor the nature of the thing, and he said that he found things in the water that led him to believe that they came from Surbiton. There had recently been a flood in that locality, and some of the contents of the cesspools of the place had been washed into the reservoirs. He had naturally since that time kept his eyes open to the quality of the water coming from the Chelsea Waterworks, and he had noticed whether there had been any extensive floods in that neighbourhood, so that he might not drink any more water than he could help. He thought the defence which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made for the vestries, that they were not responsible for a great deal of the charges laid at their door, was a just one. He would conclude by saying that if some arrangement could be made for a proper audit of vestry accounts, it would be a real and substantial improvement; and he hoped that, ere long, whenever there might be

  1829
  an opportunity of legislating upon the subject, it would be provided.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, to his own knowledge, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had been, from the commencement of the Session. endeavouring to obtain a night on which to call the attention of the House to the question of the water supply of the Metropolis, which was a very large question, and ought to be discussed by itself. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison), speaking of the watering of the streets, had told them that, in that respect, London was infinitely worse than Paris and other Continental cities. That was so; but then the streets in those cities were watered, not by carts, as in London, but by fixed hydrants; and this question should be discussed on the Water Supply Motion. It should be borne in mind that the population in foreign cities was much more densely concentrated than in London, owing to the practice of the people living in flats; so that the 12 arrondissements which constituted the older City of Paris, as contrasted with the outer ring of 8 arrondissements, were much less in area than the borough he had the honour to represent. Still, he believed considerable improvement had been made within the last few years. As to the paving of London, no one could say that it was all that it ought to be; but considerable improvement had been brought about. The existing boards wore becoming alive to the question. As regarded the contracts for scavengering, several vestries had given up the practice of entering into them, and did the work for themselves. It had been said that the London vestries had no permanent officials; but he must say that the vestry clerks, as a rule, wore well chosen and very able men, and generally they had served for a great number of years. He hoped that the debate would not close without there being a renewed assurance that the Home Secretary would go into the whole question.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, considering the terms of the Motion, they might conclude that they had discussed this question enough for all practical purposes. He quite agreed in the general view expressed in the Motion; but he was in this unfortunate position—that different views were en-
  1830
  tertained with respect to what he said last year. One hon. Gentleman went so far as to state that he had distinctly promised that Government would take up the question and deal with it in the course of the present Session, and had called him over the coals for not having carried that promise to fulfilment; but, certainly, that was not the view of what he had said taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), who had, upon the occasion in question, complained that he had not made any definite statement upon the matter, but had treated it in a light manner as if it were a question of no importance. All he could say was that they were both mistaken. There was, however, no one more sensible of the importance of the question than he was; but then it was one which must be dealt with as a whole, and not in piecemeal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) seemed enamoured of the one idea that the whole of the Metropolis should be included in the City of London. That was a startling proposition, so much so, indeed, that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board immediately rose from his seat and left the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough would embody that proposal in a Bill, and submit it to the House, it was probable the hon. and gallant Baronet would remain in his seat and let the hon. Member understand that there were weighty objections to it. As regarded the reform of the City of London, it was a large and serious question, and had been considered by Committee after Committee and by Commission after Commission, which had, no doubt, collected a vast amount of material for Government to deal with, and such was its importance that no person but the Government should attempt to do so. There were, however, several minor points—minor points as regarded the main question, but still of great importance in themselves. Such was the watering of the streets, and such was the efficiency of the fire brigade; but both these questions depended upon a much larger one, which was that of the general water supply. He looked upon that as one of very great importance, for the water supplied for household use was in such a state that it ought to be

  1831
  discontinued. There were a great many minor questions involved in this which ought to be dealt with at once, for he was not one of those who thought that if they could not at once carry some gigantic measure of reform they should not attempt reforms in detail. Besides the defective system of local government in the Metropolis, there was the defective system of vestry administration. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had joined the vestry of his parish, for the great difficulty in the way of the system of local government by vestries was the inability to find gentlemen of ability and social standing to undertake the duties of vestrymen, where they obtained no honour, but had to undertake a great deal of work, and disagreeable work, for which they received no thanks. There was no doubt the nature of the election prevented gentlemen of that class seeking for seats on the vestry; and, therefore, he would at once remove every impediment in the way of obtaining the best men to serve. Some gentlemen were of opinion that the functions of vestrymen were small—they were small in one sense; but in another they were of the utmost importance, as upon them to a large extent depended the comfort, the domestic happiness, the health, and the daily convenience of the inhabitants. In the first place, it was the duty of the vestrymen to see that the house drains were properly connected with the sewers; but he believed few of them took that trouble. [Mr. J. R. YORKE: They do not.] They had it, then, on the authority of a vestryman that they never did that duty. Again, as regarded the filthy state of the footpaths. The duty of keeping them clean rested with the occupiers of the houses forming the frontage; but if they neglected to do so, then it was for the vestries to step in and put the law in force by compelling them to do so. Then, as to the watering of the streets, he agreed that the system of watering in Paris was superior to theirs. But the watering of the streets and the efficiency of the fire brigade could not, he repeated, be well dealt with apart from the general question of the water supply. He did not wish to put aside that great question; but it would be irregular for him to deal with it until it came before the House as a whole. When the Motions on the
  1832
  Paper bearing upon these subjects were brought forward, he would be quite prepared to state the views of the Government upon them. He might add, in conclusion, that his hon. Friend had suggested one practical question which was well worthy of consideration, and that was, if they could not obtain a regular Government audit of vestry accounts. That was a subject which, in his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) opinion, must be dealt with before long.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that after the discussion which had occurred he should, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  RAILWAYS—RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—THE ADOPTION OF CONTINUOUS BRAKES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BAXTER, who had on the Paper the following Amendment:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is now the duty of the Government to take such measures as may be necessary to secure, within a fixed and reasonable time, the application to all Railway passenger vehicles in the United Kingdom of Continuous Brakes which comply with the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade as essential to public safety;"
  said: If the House will give me its attention for a short period, I think I shall be able to state a case so strong that if Members were not convinced, the fault must be with the exponent, and him alone. I think it is incumbent upon me to show to the House, in the first place, that the danger to which we are exposed in railway travelling, and from which the use of proper brakes would save us, is of sufficient importance to call for the interference of Parliament. I hold in my hand an analysis of the railway accidents which have taken place during six years. I find that, between 1870 and 1876, there were 1,234 accidents which were of sufficient importance to be inquired into by officials of the Board of Trade; and of these, 952, or nearly four-fifths, might have been prevented, or mitigated, at all events—so the gentlemen say who have looked into the matter—by the use of efficient brakes. The yearly average of accidents investigated was 176. This large number might have been reduced

  1833
  by 136, in the opinion of the officials, by proper brakes having been used. Several of the accidents which have of late occurred have been of a very disastrous character. In one, at Wigan, 44 persons were killed or injured; at Skipton, 103 persons; at Norwich, 130; at Ripton, 72; at Armley Junction, 122; and at Newark, 59. The year 1877, as many hon. Gentlemen will remember, was a year singularly free from railway accidents. During that year 675 passengers and 176 railway servants were killed or injured by accidents to trains; and, applying to this year the proportion of the last six years, I have ascertained that in 1877 nearly 700 persons have sustained injuries by accident which efficient brakes might have prevented. In 1876 the numbers of killed and injured were over 1,300; in 1874 they were nearly 1,600; and the Board of Trade Returns just issued show the numbers killed and injured in 1878 were considerably more than in 1877–1,074 persons being killed or injured last year. I admit at once that these casualties, lamentable as they are, are inconsiderable compared with the enormous number of journeys performed each year—over, I believe, 600,000,000. But the House must keep in mind that the proportion of the public travelling habitually is small; and, therefore, the danger to which they are exposed is confined to a comparatively small number of individuals. I do not for one moment propose to complain of the general management of the railways of this country. On the contrary, when I think of the number of trains continually running, not only in daylight, but in the darkness—running, too, at an enormously high speed—I am filled with admiration at the organization, the skill, and the care which enable us to travel with only those dangers which we do now encounter. But whilst giving the Companies the utmost credit for the degree of safety they have obtained for us, I think the figures I have quoted show conclusively that there are still great dangers to life and limb for which it behoves us to adopt remedial measures. In the second place, it is my duty to show to the House, before inviting Parliament to compel Railway Companies to take such remedial measures, that the Railway Companies have been warned of the state of matters with sufficient urgency, and for a sufficient
  1834
  number of years, to justify the interference of this House. Evidence on this point is very abundant, as the question is no new one. But I will only trouble the House with one or two instances. I have heard hon. Gentlemen say that we have not given the Railway Companies time enough. My answer to that is that as long ago as September, 1858, the Board of Trade issued a Circular, in which they say the amount of brake power then habitually supplied to trains was in most cases insufficient to prevent the occurrence of accidents, and it was essential to the safety of trains going at a high rate of speed that the engine-drivers should have power to stop the trains, having had notice of the obstruction of the line, before they reach the obstructed point. From that day to this, for 20 years, the Board of Trade has been continually knocking at the door of the Railway Companies to give sufficient brake power. I ask hon. Gentlemen do they not read with pain these Returns made every year of the number of casualties, carrying mourning and sorrow into so many homes, seeing that they might have been avoided had proper brakes been adopted? For 20 years the Board of Trade have been warning and remonstrating with the Railway Companies, and one would have thought they would by this time have given up the task in despair, and have called upon Parliament to assist them in enforcing what was required. The tone of remonstrance has now been superseded by one of threatening. This tone culminated in August, 1877, in a very significant intimation—one in which I most cordially approve. Last year was passed an Act which gave warning to Railway Companies that if they did not adopt a proper system of brakes they must be compulsorily interfered with. I have said enough to show that the Companies had warning sufficiently urgent and for sufficiently long a period of time to justify the interference of this House. Now, I am going to lay before the House the manner in which these warnings have been received, and to show the House what has been provided in this essential matter for the public safety. I take, first, the London and North Western Company. They use a brake, regarding which the Board of Trade wrote to the Company in March, 1877, in the following remarkable terms:—

  1835
  "The Board of Trade desire me again most seriously to urge upon the Directors the necessity of re-considering their system of brakes. Inquiries and experiments have shown that there are brakes which fulfil the conditions mentioned in the Board of Trade Circular, and should the London and North Western Railway Company, after such experience as that afforded by the present case—an accident near Warrington Station, in which the brake was proved to be quite ineffective—hesitate to adopt an efficient continuous brake, and to issue and enforce such regulations as will insure its proper working, the confidence of the public in the earnest and anxious desire of the Company to do all that lies in their power to secure the safety of railway travellers will be at an end; and in the event of a casualty occurring which an efficient system of brake might have prevented a heavy personal responsibility would rest upon those who are answerable for such neglect."
  But there is an opposition on the part of the London and North Western Company to give preference to a self-acting brake. At the recent half-yearly meeting, Mr. Moon, the Chairman, stated 'that the directors set their faces against self-acting brakes; and, further, that he did not believe any man in his senses would say they ought to risk their trains with a self-acting brake. That is a policy which has been most consistently followed by that Company. They have fitted 600 brakes since the Circulars of the Board of Trade wore published, every one of which was not in accordance with these conditions. The London and North Western Company not only thought itself powerful enough to treat with absolute contempt and indifference the Circulars of the Board of Trade, but they flew at higher game, and defied the authority of this House. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1874, and reported in 1877 as follows:—
  "We recommend that the Railway Companies should be required by law, under adequate penalties, to supply all trains with sufficient brake power to stop them within 500 yards under all circumstances."
  Now, this was proposed by men who, according to Mr. Moon, are not in their senses; and he went further, and said Parliament dare not pass such a Resolution. The London and North Western Railway Company carry about one-tenth of the whole passenger traffic of the United Kingdom. The Queen and Royal Family go by it twice a-year to Scotland. Yet on this line they are habitually using a brake so inefficient that the Board of Trade warns the directors that "they incur a personal responsi-
  1836
  bility by continuing to use it." This is a cogent reason for the interference of Parliament. Then, take the Midland Company, they use six different brakes, some of which are in accordance with the conditions of the Board of Trade, and some of which are not; but, surely, they should be uniform. The Midland Company go in for a large variety of brakes which, I believe, in the end will land them in great confusion and enormous expense. The Great Northern Company adopted a continuous brake at an early period, and showed that they were very enlightened in doing so; but, unfortunately, the brake does not conform to the conditions now laid down by the Board of Trade, and I cannot help thinking that it is unfortunate that the directors should go on making brakes which it is absolutely certain must be replaced very shortly. The Caledonian Company, I am sorry to say, as a Scotchman, have been experimenting with brakes for eight years without any result at all. The North Eastern Company intimated a year ago that they had adopted a brake which they meant to apply over all the system; but I do not find that they have succeeded in carrying out this excellent resolution. I have been informed—rightly or wrongly I do not know—that the Companies, believing that the Government intend immediately to legislate in the sense of the Resolution I have laid upon the Table of the House, have stopped the little progress which they have been making in the matter, and are waiting, with folded hands, to be delivered by this House out of a dilemma which is really painful, but from which, I believe, they are perfectly unable to extricate themselves. I think I have shown the little progress which has been made; but the most alarming fact is that this little progress has been in entirely a wrong direction. The larger proportion of the brakes fitted do not conform to the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade as absolutely essential to the public safety, and to the uniformity which is absolutely necessary. The money part of the question is a subject for the shareholders to decide; and it is time they should see that the majority of the Railway Companies are providing brakes which need not be renewed in a few years' time. But we have to deal with the safety of our countrymen and countrywomen,

  1837
  and if the Railway Companies do not conform to the rules and opinions of the Board of Trade it is time that Parliament should interfere. Just look at the position of other countries with regard to the matter. America is the most advanced of all countries in the adoption of these brakes. There is good reason for that, as most railways in the United States are unfenced. About nine or ten years ago, they began to use continuous brakes. So satisfactory did the plan turn out, that now three-fourths of the passenger vehicles in the United States are so fitted, and the question is being discussed whether they should be applied to goods trains. It is believed in. the United States that in two or three years continuous brakes pay for themselves in preventing loss to property and life; and it is a remarkable fact that the Railway Companies find it utterly impossible to get engineers, stokers, or guards to take charge of any train which is not fitted with an efficient brake. I was told the other day, on good authority, that employés of railways in this country—engine-drivers, stokers, and guards—are unanimous in favour of the measure I now propose. In Canada these brakes are in use over half the railways. In Belgium the Government have adopted a brake which is now in use over all the Belgium State Railways. The facts with regard to France are very remarkable. France was very slow to take up this question. A year ago, scarcely a single train in France was fitted with a continuous brake; but now there are as many trains so fitted in France as in the United Kingdom, and they are proceeding at such a rate that they will outdistance us very soon. I will not trouble the House with facts concerning Germany, Austria, and some other countries. All are taking up the question with great interest. Our Australian Colonies and India are also discussing the question; and since I entered this House, I have been informed that the Board of Trade of Holland had recommended the Chambers to compel the Railway Companies of that country to adopt before the 15th of May, 1880, a continuous brake answering, in all respects, to the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade. England does not shine much in this matter, considering the time since we started railways and the wealth we have. What is the explanation of so
  1838
  disappointing and unfortunate a result? I do not think anyone who has watched the progress of this question believes for one moment that Railway Companies have really set to work in earnest to meet the requirements of the Board of Trade in this respect, or the question would have been settled long ago. The jealousy of experts is very well known. Some of them have brakes of their own, and others are interested in brakes which have been invented by their friends. Every Member who is connected with railways, who hears me, knows that this is the fact, and so does the Board of Trade; because in August, 1877, they invited the Railway Companies to consider this matter, and pointed out to them that their officers had not exerted themselves to satisfy the requirements of the public. Well, these differences do exist, and they exist to such an extent, and in such force, that I believe the interference of this House is absolutely necessary. I have no connection whatever with any Railway Company, and I have no connection whatever with any of those Companies which have invented continuous brakes. I never saw one of them, and I do not understand the matter in a mechanical point of view at all. But I do not think that it is necessary that we in the House of Commons should have any such knowledge, because we have a very wise counsellor in the Board of Trade. In looking through the Correspondence which has taken place with the Board of Trade with regard to this matter, I am very much struck with the wisdom which has been shown by that Department. I do not believe that there exists, either in this country or any other country, a Department of a Government which is actuated by so strong a desire to promote the public interests. It would be ridiculous in me to cite authorities in favour of this view; but I must thoroughly endorse a single sentence in a Report recently presented by Mr. Harrison, a Member of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, to the North Eastern Railway Company, which is to the following effect:—
  "It is hardly necessary to repeat to you what I have recently said, that I entirely agree with the Board of Trade in the conditions laid down by them as being necessary."
  Now, what is the condition of affairs? For 20 years the Board of Trade has been pressing on the Railway Companies

  1839
  the necessity of adopting proper continuous brakes. We find that the Board of Trade, through the Royal Commission, did insist upon certain rules for the guidance of the Railway Companies. We find, further, that in 1877, the Board of Trade laid down the conditions which made up an adequate brake; and we find that in 1878, the Board of Trade, anxious to avoid, if possible, the use of compulsory measures, obtained an Act requiring Railway Companies to make semi-annual Returns of the use of the brakes. What has been the result of all their warnings? Why, we have got into a deadlock—a muddle, if I may so call it—which I believe to be hopeless, and which we shall never get out of by voluntary arrangements. The Board of Trade has done all that it could do in this matter, and done it well. The Railway Companies, it is confessed, are all at sixes and sevens. They have done nothing, or very little, and the little they have done has been so badly done that it will have to be done over again. In these circumstances, I think that Parliament is bound to step in and strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government by taking the course recommended in the Resolution which I have placed upon the Table, but which, I am afraid, I am not now able to move—namely,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is now the duty of the Government to take such measures as may he necessary to secure, within a fixed and reasonable time, the application to all Railway passenger vehicles in the United Kingdom of Continuous Brakes which comply with the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade as essential to public safety."
  COLONEL MAKINS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Baxter) seemed to assume throughout his remarks that the Railway Companies are anxious to avoid taking the responsibility of accepting these brakes, forgetting that the Companies must, more than anybody else, benefit by getting the best that can be devised. It is true that the Board of Trade have laid down conditions which must be fulfilled; but they have not indicated which of the brakes, in their opinion, best complies with these conditions. We have four or five brakes in the market, all of which claim to fulfil, and some of which, undoubtedly, do fulfil, the conditions brought under our notice. The Companies naturally endeavour to find out, by comparison, which
  1840
  of them is the best for their purpose. To do that, of course, requires a considerable amount of time; but there is another difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman does not recognize, and that is the difficulty the Companies have of getting brakes when they require them. The Company with which I am connected has had in order, for a long time, one of the automatic continuous brakes, and we find it absolutely impossible to get the machinery delivered. It is not a question of cost at all, for the simplest and best brake will, in the end, be the cheapest; and it is for the interest of the travelling public, as well as of the Companies, that we should, before finally adopting a general brake for our railway systems, find out which is the best and which is the most simple. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to move his Resolution, and the House had thought fit to carry it, one effect would have been immediately to cause that difficulty to which I have alluded to be very greatly increased. The patentees of those brakes would naturally have said—"Now that the Government are going to force you to adopt these brakes, we will double the price of them, and we will make a very good market out of your difficulty." That I think would be the first result of any such action on the part of Parliament. Then there is another consideration. All the brakes hitherto invented, although they do comply, as far as experiments have gone, with the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade, are more or less imperfect. Even those most highly in favour occasionally fail, and we have had failures even of the Westinghouse brake which might have had very serious consequences. Not only engineers and officials, but drivers and guards who use the brakes, are very much divided in opinion as to which are the best. Then the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman covers the whole ground of our passenger system; and it must be obvious to all acquainted with railway work that it is not necessary to have the same kind of brake for fast and slow trains. For one class of train, you may require a more perfect automatic brake than for the other. There are trains which run over branch and loop lines, which are composed not of passenger carriages only, but of milk vans, horse boxes, and other vehicles, which are detached at various points on the

  1841
  road. For such a train, which is broken up from time to time on its journey, the continuous automatic brake, with its special applications of pipes and valves, would be quite unnecessary; and I should think the House would not desire to impose on the Companies, in trains of this class, the obligation of placing that sort of brake on the whole of the passenger vehicles. Although the right hon. Gentleman says he has nothing to do with the cost, that is a very serious matter when it comes to be considered. The cost of an automatic brake, exclusive of fitting, for engines alone, is about £60, and from £27 to £30 for every other vehicle. The cost of fitting mounts up to a large sum; and, in fact, in the railway to which I have alluded, it would cost from £75,000, to £80,000 to put this brake on all our vehicles. In addition to that, there would be an annual charge for maintenance and repair of some £5,000 or £6,000 a-year more. The directors would not shrink for one moment, even from that large expenditure, if they were certain that they had the best and most efficient brake, and that they would not have to undo their work. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt very properly and forcibly on the folly of spending money on brakes that might hereafter turn out to be inefficient, and I can assure him that it is not the intention of the Companies to adopt any such course. If they have various types of brakes, it is simply because they wish to see by actual experiment which is the best for their purpose. I think it would be a very great pity if this question were pushed on by means of a Resolution of this House; and I am rather glad that, by the Forms of the House, it is impossible that such a thing can be done to-night. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman for raising the question, or for the way in which he has treated it, except that I think he spoke with a certain amount of harshness of the Railway Companies, which probably arose more from ignorance than any wish to deal unfairly with them. Having called the attention of the House and Government to this subject, I wish he would press the matter one step further, and ask the Board of Trade, when next they issue a Circular on this subject, to indicate a little more closely which brake they wish the Railway Companies to adopt. They will then relieve us from a considerable amount of em-
  1842
  barrassment. They will be accepting a serious amount of responsibility; but we shall know exactly to do what we ought to do.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he was confident that the Board of Trade would be very glad that the House should express a strong opinion on this important subject, as it would enable them to take up a stronger position towards the Railway Companies than they had heretofore been able to assume. It was remarkable to observe that in the past six years, while accidents from unsuitable or inadequate brake power had increased considerably, other accidents, from defective arrangements of points and signals, had decreased very largely. The conclusion he drew from this comparison was that there were accidents over which there was vast control if they wished to exercise it, and that accidents could be prevented. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he was sitting down, said he hoped the House would not be hurried into premature action; but no one could complain of too rapid action on this question. The rate was 3 per cent for the adoption of this system for the engines during the last six months for which the Returns were complete, and 4 per cent for the carriages. The progress had been very slow, indeed, and meantime accidents were occurring and lives were being lost. If there was one thing more monotonous than another in the Blue Books relating to this subject, it was the reiterated complaint of the Railway Inspectors—"If continuous brakes had been in use on this line, the accident would not have occurred," or "the effects of this collision would have been greatly modified." Reference had been made to expense. He had read that the cost of fitting the brake to an engine would be £100, and to a carriage £35; but he would ask the House to remember the expense the Railway Companies had gone to in applying different systems, simply from the absence of agreement among themselves to adopt one which excelled the others. The Americans had adopted the system of continuous brakes, and they found that the expense had been amply repaid by the increased safety of the traffic. Nobody supposed that one general system of continuous brakes could be established for all time. That was not what was asked. What

  1843
  was asked was this—that each Railway Company should adopt for itself a system of continuous brakes, which complied with conditions founded on just and true experience. The system of through trains now running on the Great Northern, North Eastern, and North British, showed that there was no difficulty in regard to traffic passing over several lines. Reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) to what was doing in foreign countries; and he showed that France in a short time would have all its railways supplied with efficient brakes, while the English Companies were wrangling with the Board of Trade. It was strange that the Chairman of the London and North Western Railway Company could have said what he had, with the recollection of an accident which occurred on his own line in 1877, which was of a peculiar character, and forcibly illustrated the necessity for continuous brakes. There was a gap in the line, 30 yards having been taken up, and of this there was 1,500 yards' notice to the driver of a train approaching at the rate of 40 miles an hour. It plunged into the gap at the rate of six miles an hour. An immediate examination showed that some tires were cold, some lukewarm, and some hot, showing that the brakes, under the management of four men, had been applied at four different times. Could anything more strongly illustrate the necessity of having a continuous brake system worked by one man from the engine and on his own responsibility? He (Mr. peel) was unwilling that attention should be called to this subject by any director being killed, on whichever side of the House he might sit. But he thought they would have had continuous brakes before this if a director had been in the position of a guard on an Irish railway, who, in the year 1878, was in a carriage, two wheels of which were off the line, and who had to go for three miles in that perilous position before the train could be stopped. There was no difficulty in pulling up and stopping a train of 100 or 200 tons while travelling at 40 miles an hour, within a distance of 200 yards; that difficulty had been got over; the important point was that there should be automatic action of the brake, and that information should be given to the man in charge the moment the brake ceased to
  1844
  be in perfect working order. To say that men would rely too much on a magnificent instrument was an odd argument against giving it to them for the protection of life. The failures that had occurred with continuous brakes furnished no argument against the principle of them, though they might tell against the mechanism of some particular application. Any system they could devise would fail, just as the energies of the human mind fail, or the physical powers of the human body would fail. The interlocking and block systems and other improvements occasionally failed; but that was no argument against their general utility. But the time had come when the Board of Trade ought to say to the Companies that they must agree among themselves upon some system or systems to be generally available over their lines. Of course, on small branch lines, where trains did not attain more than 25 miles an hour, it would not be necessary to provide the same brake power as for trains of a higher speed. He did not advocate compulsion or uniformity, for he objected to the State management of railways; and it would be only in the event of the Companies proceeding at too slow a pace that the State should interfere with their independent action.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, that as a railway director he was exceedingly glad that this question had been brought forward. A discussion had taken place, and the views of hon. Members on the question could not fail to prove impressive, and they would be quite as effectual as the passage of an Act of Parliament, or even an Order made by the Board of Trade. He thought the time had arrived when some further pressure should be put upon railways in this direction. For the last four or five years experiments had been going on—experiments of every sort and every description of brake, whether steam, air, water, or any kind of mechanical contrivance. But although many of the brakes now in use complied with several of the requirements of the Board of Trade, yet he thought everyone must admit that no perfect brake had yet been found; and until that perfect brake, or one answering every requisite for the safety of the travelling public, was found, it would be most unwise to put power in the hands of any Department to insist upon the universal

  1845
  adoption of any particular brake. There were, he believed, some 40 or 50 different descriptions of brakes that had been applied on different lines. Two or throe of them, perhaps, would answer most of the requirements of the Board of Trade; and he believed there was one which might be said to answer almost all of the requirements, but even that was, in some respects, imperfect; but until it was known which particular brake was to be the brake of the future, he thought it would be most unwise to interfere by any compulsory action. The Railway Companies had not been so inactive in the matter as some hon. Members thought. Upon no fewer than 70 of our railway systems continuous brakes had been in operation during the last few years; and from the last Return of the Board of Trade it would be found that nearly 800 locomotive engines, and over 8,000 passenger carriages, had been fitted with a continuous brake. This, at a moderate cost, must have cost upwards of £250,000. As, however, there were nearly 4,000 locomotives and upwards of 30,000 passenger carriages used on the various railways of the United Kingdom, it might be said this was not a large proportion, and that there was ample scope for further experiments until this great deficiency was supplied. It would, of course, be invidious to call attention to particular railways; yet, as might be seen from the Return, there were many Companies that had done little or nothing in the way of adopting continuous brakes, while others had fitted up the greater portion of their rolling stock with them. There was need for pressure; and he, for one, should certainly maintain that the only question was how, and by what means, and to what extent, should that pressure be applied. It was now almost universally admitted that the modern appliances which had of late years been introduced into our railway system, such as the communication between drivers and guards, continuous foot boards, block signals, interlocking apparatus, and other minor improvements, had contributed largely to the diminishing of accidents; consequently those appliances, although expensive, had done; good. And, setting aside the saving of life and limb, they had been an improvement even in a pecuniary point of view. Therefore, it was to the interest of the
  1846
  Companies, considering the matter on the lowest basis, to adopt every such improvement. These appliances, introduced of late years, were at first looked upon with disfavour by the Companies, and with indifference by the public; and it was only fair to say that their adoption was mainly brought about: through the instrumentality of the Board of Trade. It was only due to the Board of Trade that this should be publicly stated, because they had no direct power to enforce the adoption of any of those improvements to which he had referred, but by the pressure they had continuously applied they had been able to effect these desirable objects; and he could not help thinking that even in this case, after the expression of opinion of this House, and after the expression of public opinion, which, no doubt, would immediately follow, that they would be able without any special Act to bring about a general adoption of continuous brakes. At all events, until it had been seen that they had failed to accomplish this, he thought it would be unwise to interfere compulsorily. There was, he believed, only one instance on record where direct legislative action had been brought to bear upon the application of any appliance upon our railway system. The Act of 1868 directed that some such efficient means of communication should be provided between drivers, guards, and passengers of trains as met with the approval of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade signified their approval of a particular form of communication, and that form of communication was adopted by the railways; but for some reason or other the approval of the Board of Trade was soon withdrawn, and the Act of Parliament, therefore, became a dead letter. Assuming that the same course would be pursued in this case as was in that of communication between driver and guard, and it were provided that some specific continuous brake power should be applied to every train, it might so happen that the Board of Trade would specify a brake which, within a very short time, might be found not to be the best brake, and the consequence would be that the regulation would be disregarded, and the Act itself rendered worse than useless. That, he thought, would not be a very nice state of things to bring about; and he, therefore, objected to any direct Parliamen-

  1847
  tary interference until it had been shown what was the best sort of brake to be used. It would be desirable, before the Board of Trade issued any further notices of this kind to Railway Companies, that they should satisfy themselves more fully as to the requirements of railways. He himself would have suggested that there should have been some public trial, under the supervision of the Board of Trade, of every system of brake that was known to be in use on the various lines in the Kingdom, and that the trial should take place before a competent, and unprejudiced, and unbiassed body of men; because he quite agreed that there was a great deal of jealousy and partizanship on the part of the locomotive engineers and railway officials, which certainly had not tended to produce, so far, the best results. Engineers seemed to make up their minds in favour of one or other particular form of brake or principle, and they devoted all their energies, not towards improvement of continuous brake power in general, but towards the improvement of some particular principle they approved of, even to the exclusion of other systems. Such a trial, properly conducted, would conduce to the best solution of the difficulty, and they would thus have a reliable and unbiassed opinion as to which brake answered all the requirements most fully and effectually, and whether the brake selected might not still further be improved by the adoption and combination of some part or principle taken from another brake. He could not but think that Railway Companies would avail themselves of a brake which answered all the best requirements; because it was too manifestly to their interest, indirectly as competitors for traffic, and directly in the saving of life, that even if improvement generally considered efficient should be adopted in the system of railway brakes. The Board of Trade, no doubt, possessed the power of instituting this trial with the concurrence of the various Railway Companies, and that would be freely accorded; but, for the reasons he had stated, lie should deprecate any action by the House to clothe the Board of Trade with imperative power to enforce the adoption of a particular brake. He certainly, however, was very glad that the subject had been brought under discussion. He wished to make a few remarks in reply to the right hon. Mem-
  1848
  ber for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). He thought he was rather severe in his strictures on some railways. Speaking for the line with which he himself was connected, he could say that they had introduced a number of improvements, and he believed it was among the foremost to introduce the continuous brake; but the right hon. Member took exception to the introduction of a brake that did not comply with the requirements of the Board. He was not prepared to say that the brake they had in use did comply with the requirements of the Board; but he was happy to think that, at a comparatively light cost, it might either be altered to suit the particular brake which the Board of Trade desired to introduce, and he believed the brake itself might be made automatic. But one condition laid down by the Board of Trade appeared to him to be a condition that could not possibly be complied with. The words were—"In case of accident to be instantaneously self-acting." He could not conceive it possible that any brake could be instantaneously self-acting in every accident. A fruitful source of accident was the breaking or failure of axle, or tires, or wheels, or working. An accident might not affect the mechanism of the brake. It might be possible to apply the brake, and this showed the danger of laying down general principles of such a nature as this; and such specific definitions, on the other hand, would be laying upon the Board of Trade the responsibility which was now thrown upon the Railway Companies. He, for one, speaking quite apart from railway interests, should be exceedingly sorry to see that responsibility impaired or diminished, for he was perfectly certain that it was the best safeguard they had. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) had referred to America; but it must not be forgotten that in America they had not the block signals which were in operation in this country, and that alone did away, in a great measure, with the necessity of continuous brakes. He did not at all mean to say that continuous brakes were not an additional protection. He believed they were, and that the time would come when they would be universally in use. But it was scarcely fair to institute a comparison with America unless the circumstances were similar. He had only to say, in conclusion, that he should

  1849
  be exceedingly glad if any means could be devised by which the Board of Trade should be clothed with additional powers to bring further pressure to bear upon the Railway Companies. But whatever action was taken he hoped the responsibility would not be transferred from the Companies to the Board of Trade, for if that were done one of the best safeguards to the travelling public would disappear.
  MR. KNOWLESthought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had done good service in calling attention to this very important and interesting, though complicated, subject. It was a very easy matter for the Board of Trade to compel the adoption of some particular system of brake; but very difficult for Railway Companies with enormous rolling stock to apply it. The London and North Western Company, for instance, upon which a severe attack had been made, possessed a rolling stock of 2,000 locomotives, 5,000 carriages, besides a very large number of trucks, cattle waggons, and other vehicles, and to such a Company it would be extremely difficult to adopt brakes which any crotchety person might introduce. He used this word, because, in reality, there were a good many crotchety people who invented brakes which wore never brought to perfection. The majority of the inventions generally went smoothly on trial; but when they came to be put into practice they very frequently resulted in absolute failure. He could speak on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company in this matter, and he had no hesitation in saying that they, as well as other Companies, were fully alive to the fact that it was to the interest of the shareholders to adopt the best practical means which would conduce to the safety of the public. They had, he might say, the fullest confidence in their engineer, who was, he believed, more competent for the performance of the duties which he had to perform than anybody connected with the Board of Trade. Little or no allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the block system. He attached a great deal more importance to the block system than to the continuous brakes. That system conduced more to the safety of the public than continuous brakes would; and if the system were only
  1850
  thoroughly applied in every instance, little would be heard about such brakes as it was now desired the Board of Trade should enforce. He was inclined to ask if people were quite sure that continuous brakes would prevent accidents, because he had heard very different opinions expressed on the subject. He had heard good engineers and most ingenious people say that when the block system was properly applied, and men did their duty, the public were safer and better without the continuous brake than. with it. Continuous brakes were, no doubt suited to the peculiar circumstances of American railways; but in regard to England, trains were signalled from station to station, and the permanent way properly fenced in and free from obstacles. He agreed with those people who had doubts as to the wisdom of adopting continuous brakes on our railways. The Railway Companies wore in no way ceasing in their efforts; but were unanimous in their desire to do ail they could to protect the public; and, immense as was the traffic now, the accidents were far less than those in 1856. He asked in conclusion, whether, during the "battle of the brakes," which was still going on, it would not be preferable for the Board of Trade, as the guardians of the public, and also for the public themselves, that these things should be matured by the railways themselves, and by the ingenious gentlemen who were trying all sorts of experiments, rather than that the Government should insist upon any kind of brake, or upon what should be done at the present moment, and thus take upon itself the responsibility of that matter? He did not think the Government would do that, but that they would leave the responsibility on the shoulders of those upon whom it now rested.
  MR. LEEMAN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Knowles) has expressed views with which I must say I cannot agree. He has stated them very broadly, and I assume that they embrace the views of the whole of the directorate and of the engineer of the London and North Western Railway. Those views are opposed to the principle of continuous brakes; and he gives us that statement as a reason against the indictment of the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) that the North Western continue to adopt a system of

  1851
  brake power which is not adopted on any other railway in the immediate neighbourhood, or, so far as I am aware, throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman told us also that his Board had a very confident opinion of the excellent qualities of their engineer. Well, Sir, other Companies have got engineers, and they do not, at all events, in the immediate neighbourhood of the London and North Western, agree with the engineer of the London and North Western. Let me say that the gentleman to whom the right hon. Member for Montrose referred at the outset of this debate, Mr. Harrison, a man whose experience, at all events, has not been exceeded by any other engineer of this country, who has probably made more railways and public works than most men, who has been as well acquainted with the working of the railways in the North of England, and who, in the first instance, entertained very considerable doubt as to the precise principle and system to be adopted with regard to brakes, has come to an entirely opposite opinion to that expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and that of the engineer of the London and North. Western Railway. My right hon. Friend quoted the opinion expressed by Mr. Harrison on this subject some months ago. Sir, I hold in my hand the views entertained by Mr. Harrison, though there are parts of this communication which I shall not read, for I think it would be a great pity if we were to allow ourselves to enter into a consideration of the relative merits of different systems of brakes. I think some hon. Gentleman spoke of there being 70 systems of brakes in competition. Well, I have only heard of eight. There are only eight spoken of in the Report of the Parliamentary Commission, which lay claim to having been considerably experimented upon. But I had thought that, on the simple question of principle, all these experiments had led up to a result which the Commissioners who sat upon the Bill came to, and came to unanimously—namely, that the principle of continuous and systematic brakes was that which was required for the public safety. Well, Sir, as I have said, these Gentlemen having heard all the evidence, Mr. Harrison, who was a practical member of that Commission, joined in that Report, and in a letter which he
  1852
  wrote to me, as Chairman of the North Eastern Railway, he said—
  "The question of brake power is one of such great importance, and so many different views and opinions are held about it, that I have thought it right to put in writing, for your information, my own views and the couclusions I have arrived at after most careful consideration of the whole subject. I will refer briefly to the circumstances which led the Railway Accidents Commissioners to make the recommendations they did in their Report. The evidence given by guards, engine-drivers, and others, soon showed that they had no accurate means of ascertaining the distance within which a train, at any given speed and with a given amount of brake power, could be brought to a state of rest; in fact, the distances, they stated, were more guesses. A series of experiments were undertaken, and they showed that in the normal condition of express trains, as then running on the principal lines in the Kingdom, it required a distance of from 800 to 1,200 yards to bring them to a state of rest when travelling at 45-to 48J miles an hour, this being much below the ordinary travelling speed of the fastest express train. Railway officials were not prepared for this result, and the necessity for a great deal more brake power was at once admitted. The Commissioners, after hearing a great deal of evidence, both before and alter the experiments, recommended, in their Report, that sufficient brake power should be applied to every train to bring it to an absolute stop in 500 yards; and you will see at once that though some of the general managers thought there was no difficulty in doing this in 200 or 400 yards, the Commissioners, in fixing 500 yards, looked at all the varying circumstances of bad weather, slippery rails, and bad gradients."
  I would hero call your attention to the fact that all the engine-men and guards examined gave evidence as to the necessity of having the control of the brake power primarily in the hands of the engine-men, but that the guards should also have a given amount of brake power. I now come to an officer of the Board of Trade, and one, at the time I quote, exclusively their officer. What did he say, in 1874? I am confining myself, at this moment, to the question of principle—namely, whether the continuous automatic brake, or whether that to which the London and North Western, or one of those to which some other large railways hold, is the right one. The Commissioners quote Captain Tyler's Report of 1874—
  "That the brake should be applied at the will of the engine-drivers, and available in each part in the event of the train becoming suddenly divided."
  This means that the brake should be automatic, and the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade frequently refer to

  1853
  this point in their Reports on accidents, and express the opinion that in several cases the serious effects of accidents have been, and in others would have been, diminished by the action of the automatic brake. Mr Harrison goes on—
  "My own opinion is strong that a really efficient brake should he continuous; that it should be primarily under the control of the engine driver; that when necessary, in emergencies, the guard should have the power of applying it, and that it should be automatic in its action, in case of a train dividing from any cause, and that it should be, as nearly as possible, instantaneous in its action."
  Now that, I repeat, is the opinion of as practical a man as any in the Kingdom. Well, the Board of Trade, holding the same views, sent to the Railway Companies, and urged upon them that they should take into consideration the views which had been expressed by the Railway Commission, of which Mr. Harrison was a Member, in the Report, and which I do not think I need refer to further, but upon which the Board of Trade have been asking that the different railways should adopt the principle of instantaneous automatic action. That is the requirement which has been made to all the railways in the Kingdom, not the adoption of any specific brake. Acting upon that requirement, the North Eastern Company at once set to work and adopted a system of brake fulfilling those requirements on their own railway. But there is no doubt that what has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) is quite true. There is the greatest possible difficulty in the case of half-a-dozen railways going into one another's lines. The brake of the North Western system, of which the House has heard, comes upon the North Eastern system at Leeds and Normanton. See the difficulty which arises. No doubt, it is a practical difficulty; and the Board of Trade will tell you to-night, as they have told you on former occasions, that they will not take the responsibility of determining these difficulties. They are as cautious as possible; but in regard to the question of uniformity of brake, they feel the difficulty of determining which is the best. There is one principle, however, which stands prominently forward, that of the brake being continuous and automatic, on which they are fortified by the opinions expressed by the Commissioners, but be-
  1854
  yond that they do not go. When the responsibility is left to the Railway Companies themselves, one Company cannot determine what brake shall be adopted by the other Railway Companies. Expense has been talked of; but I do not believe the Railway Companies would allow expense in this matter of brakes, any more than in the block system, to stand in the way. Whatever will increase the safety of the public on the lines of railway will, I believe, in the long run, bring to the Railway Companies a diminution of cost in that ugly item of compensation. That the principle of continuous and automatic brakes is the safest that could be adopted was the unanimous conviction of the North Eastern Company, and as soon as we were satisfied of this, we communicated it to the Board of Trade. Well, Sir, I am not sorry that this discussion has taken place, for I hope it will show the public that these matters are being very carefully considered. I do not know what the noble Viscount the President of the Board will do; but this I will say—that I should be very sorry if it wore supposed for a moment that directors do not reflect on what is best for the safety of our passengers. You have heard that the Great Northern Railway Company have considered the best mode of carrying their traffic; and, although theirs is a different brake to ours, the North Eastern at present carries on the traffic that comes from London to York forward to Edinburgh and the whole of Scotland. Persons should not be alarmed at the idea of carriages being pulled up within 500 yards. A great many experiments have been tried in different parts of the country, and the result of those experiments has been to show clearly that we can do what was supposed years ago to be utterly impracticable. The following is the result of experiments made by the Commission itself, and must be taken, therefore, as bonâ fide—it is the Report of men who are uninfluenced in any way in favour of any particular brake—namely, the Commissioners themselves, presided over by a most practical man in the Duke of Buckingham. Upon the experiments made for the use of the Commission, they say—
  "On the whole, therefore, we think that if it be desirable to give to Railway Companies a rule for the future, the only plan will be to lay down the distances within which trains travelling on

  1855
  level ground at given speeds might tie brought to rest in cases of emergency, and these we should base on a stoppage similar to that before-mentioned—namely, that of 275 yards for a speed of 50 miles an hour, making a correction for speeds up to 60 and down to 30 miles an hour, in proportion to the squares of the rapidity, nearly as follows:—Running at 60 miles per hour, to pull up in 400 yards; 55 miles, 340 yards; 50 miles, 275 yards; 45 miles, 220 yards; 40 miles, 180 yards; 35 miles, 135 yards; 30 miles, 100 yards."
  Now, the maximum required by the Royal Commission is 500 yards. The Board of Trade, however, say that brakes must be instantaneous in their application. But to show the importance of coming to a right comparison between one system and another, it should be borne in mind, as stated by Mr. Harrison, that a loss of one second in getting the brakes in full action means a loss of 30 yards in distance; of two seconds, 60 yards; and of three seconds, 90 yards. When you consider this, the importance of the word "instantaneous" is appreciated. I must ask the House, in considering the question brought before it, to bear in mind the various circumstances to which I have adverted.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, that the House was engaged in a discussion of a highly technical character, and he was somewhat surprised that so abstruse a mechanical point as the working of an automatic instantaneous continuous brake should have been made the subject of a positive Resolution by a Member of that House who had had no actual experience of the superiority of one kind of brake over another. he hoped, however, that they would not be dragged into the discussion of the merits of any particular kind of brake. Railway directors did not object to, but would, on the contrary, accept with gladness, the authority of the Board of Trade, wherever that authority was intelligently and wisely exercised. But a difference arose as to the principle of automatic and instantaneous action. It was very difficult to understand that difference, and he should despair of making it intelligible to gentlemen who had not had the means of informing themselves as to the arose of its working. It was one thing to get a brake on to the wheels, and quite another to get it off again. Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of any particular invention, he might say that at this moment there was not one in existence that was not
  1856
  subject to sudden derangement or accident in the regular working of trains. He might give an instance of an accident which came under his personal knowledge. It was the breaking of an axle on a Scotch express. The whole train was fitted with continuous and automatic brakes, and what was the result? The train stopped to a certain degree; but it was not thoroughly stopped. Some of the carriages dragged and got off the line, and the engine-driver saw that the only safety for himself and those under his charge was by making the train taut and bringing it quietly up to a stop. The brake in this instance had been applied; but by the swaying of the carriages the connecting tube was broken, but the engine-driver was thus enabled to avert a very serious accident. He would be sorry if the Board of Trade should make itself the patron, exponent, or advertiser of the mechanical invention of any particular patentee. That was not what was desired in a great Department of Government. Let all the inventions stand upon their own merits. The House had heard from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) what was Mr. Harrison's opinion. The opinion of that gentleman was entitled to the greatest respect; but all the most able with the least able were liable to a bias in one direction or another. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) had suggested that the Board of Trade should have a compulsory trial of all the continuous automatic brakes now competing for public favour. But he had one objection to that—and this had been in a measure anticipated by the hon. Member for Wigan—that was, that all experiments made under what might be called fair weather conditions, with a train prepared with guards, officials, directors, and patentees all present to insure the success of the experiment, was not the sort of success to stand the wear and tear of every-day work. That was one difficulty in the way of an authoritative trial; and another objection was that every month of the year, and almost every week of the month, brought nearer and nearer a solution of the question. There were inventions coming up every day, and it would be a grave misfortune if, by the premature action of that House or of the Board of Trade, the travelling public and the railway interest were to be deprived of the best

  1857
  invention. He was not at all opposed to pressure of a gentle and proper kind being brought to bear on the companies, to ensure that they did not go to sleep, and to show that the public would not submit to an indefinite retardation of the subject; but it was also of the utmost importance that the companies should not get into a wrong groove, from which there would be no return. With these remarks he would quit the question; and, speaking for the board of which he was a member, they would hail with the greatest satisfaction any invention fulfilling the conditions all must admit were essential to the public safety.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, this question did not affect Railway Companies merely, or the public who travelled by fast trains. It affected in a very special manner working men employed on trains carrying heavy material, which were liable to many and grievous accidents. He hoped that when the question should be brought up again, it would be dealt with in relation to trains carrying heavy material. He trusted that the wisdom which had guided the Board of Trade hitherto would prevent it from giving a preference to any particular brake, but would content itself with laying down certain requisite conditions to be complied with, leaving to Railway Companies to choose any one brake which complied with these conditions; otherwise, when an accident happened, the railway companies would say that they had carried out the will of the Department, and the result was the accident which had occurred.
  MR. HICKsaid, the subject was one of very great interest and importance, and he, and every hon. Member present, would appreciate the motives which had induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) to bring it forward; but he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's views when he laid so much stress upon the want of brake-power as the cause of so many accidents. he (Mr. Hick, admitted that there were many accidents due to this cause, but no! nearly so many as the right hon. Gentleman attributed to it. The right hon. Gentleman was rather severe on the London and North Western Railway, of which he (Mr. Hick) had the honour of being a director; but he felt quite sure that no body of directors in the
  1858
  country paid more attention to securing the safe working of the line than did the London and North Western. For a considerable number of years they had been making experiments to find the best kind of brake, and he quite agreed that it was of paramount importance to have a continuous effective brake. He must say a few words in reference to a remark attributed to Mr. Moon by the right hon. Member for Montrose. Mr. Moon was said to have expressed an opinion "that a man must be out of his senses to trust his safety to an automatic brake." Mr. Moon must have referred only to such brakes as railways had before them, and in that he (Mr. Hick) quite agreed. He would be sorry to trust to any automatic brake he knew, for they were very uncertain in their action, and, so far from preventing accidents, some day they would lead to an accident. Speaking from a long mechanical experience, he regarded all automatic machinery with distrust. You could not depend on your material to such an extent but that there might be some flaw, and he would much rather trust machinery and its application where the watchful eye of a skilful and careful man was necessary. He argued, also, that it would be a bad policy for the Board of Trade to interfere and support any particular brake. It would be a dangerous step. It would remove all responsibility from the Railway Companies, and there would be a check to all improvements and new inventions. He was quite sure that all connected with railways were agreed that anything calculated to prevent accidents should be adopted. The London and North Western Company had not been slow in trying experiments with brakes of various kinds. Something like £100,000 they had spent already; but cost was not an element in their consideration. A good deal had been said about the company taking up an invention of one of their officers; but why should they not, if the inventor was—as the company believed he was—one of the cleverest engineers to be found? He (Mr. Hick) fully believed their engineer was one of the ablest railway engineers in England. he had, in connection with another gentleman, been fortunate enough to invent a brake that the company, after careful experiments, had adopted. The invention was now under-

  1859
  going alteration. Experiments and improvements were being made upon it, and only to-day orders had been given for the application of certain improvements of the greatest consequence. He did not know any better brake than the Clark and Webb brake used by the London and North Western Railway; and he believed, when it was made as perfect as it could be made, no brake in the country would equal it, and, certainly, there was no brake in the country under which he should consider himself so safe from accident. He would only further say he regretted such strong remarks should have been made in regard to the North Western, because he was sure that if the directors knew of a brake, invented by anyone and better than their own, they would not hesitate to adopt it at any cost. In conclusion, he would say that if they were actuated by no other motive than that of self-interest they should do all in their power to adopt means for the prevention of accidents, but he trusted they had far higher inducements. Could it be thought that they cared nothing for mutilated limbs? Nothing for the painful and sometimes sudden deaths, or that they had no sympathy with the sufferings and sorrows of the bereaved? He could assure the House that they, and all who had anything to do with the management and the working of railways, felt these things deeply, and should not relax in their exertions until they had devised and adopted means which should render the occurrence of these accidents—as far as was practicable—impossible.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, this question had been before the directors of the London and North Western Company for the last 20 years. Clarke's brake was, after very great consideration, adopted by that company. It was improved by Mr. Webb, their engineer, then second in command, and it had since been called Clarke and Webb's brake, but it was not originally invented by an officer of the company. Modifications were being made in it, and there would be little doubt it was the brake most likely, with improvements, to fulfil all the conditions required by the Board of Trade. He would not have ventured to mention this brake, in contradistinction to all others, if the London and North Western Company had not been so particularly alluded to in the course of the
  1860
  evening. The directors of that company were fully alive to the importance of continuous brakes, but there was a little fashion in these matters. At one time the salvation of passengers was to be the interlocking system, at another time communication between passengers and guard, and then again continuous brakes were to bring about the result they all wished for. The directors of the London and North Western Company believed that in the prevention of accidents much was due to the management and discipline of the whole line in case of the momentary failure of any individual part of the machinery. Reference had been made to the readiness with which continuous brakes were adopted in America; but he wished to point out that there, owing to the greater length of the carriages, there were much fewer couplings and joinings. He did not join in the recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) that the Board of Trade should institute any authoritative trials of brakes, as they already had the result of the Newark trials, which showed all that could be done; nor did he join ill the other recommendation, that the Board of Trade should force any particular brake upon Railway Companies. He believed such a course would defeat its own object and effect no good. What was desired was a brake that could be depended upon at all times. The present discussion had shown that railway directors were alive to the necessities of the case, and he honestly believed that they were only anxious to secure the best form of brake that could be attained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had stated that France had gone farther ahead than England in the matter of railway brakes; but if he inquired into the facts, he would find that the Northern of France had adopted one of the brakes in the second category of the Board of Trade, which did not carry out all the requirements.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I feel confident that the House will agree with me that the course of this debate has fully justified the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter) in bringing this subject forward. Not a single hon. Member has got up who has not expressed gratitude to him for having raised the subject, and I think with

  1861
  them that that gratitude is justly due. We were much interested in the very careful and temperate speech which he made, and we are much indebted to him for bringing this subject prominently before the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), the Seconder of the Motion, who also has a large acquaintance with these matters, no less deserves our gratitude, as he has contributed to the discussion the result of experience which he gained during the time of his connection, as a Member of the Government, with the Board of Trade. Further than this, I am willing to agree heartily with my right hon. Friend opposite in his opening remarks—that is to say, I join with him most cordially in expressing the pride which we all must feel with respect to the generally very able management of our great railway lines. My right hon. Friend bore ungrudging testimony on that point, and I think there is no one living in these Three Kingdoms who does not feel that he has a right to be proud both of the high character and the devotion to business of the directors, and of the great scientific acquirements and equally high character of that noble class of railway officers who control and manage the marvellous means of communication which we now enjoy. Whether you look at those men of high genius, capacity, and skill, who are the working heads of these immense undertakings, or whether you look to those whose hands carry on this complicated traffic, we have every reason to be proud of the way in which our railway system is managed. But, having said so much, I must venture to remind those who have spoken on behalf of the railway interest, and who have claimed for themselves, I cannot but think somewhat too strongly, the credit for doing and having done all that the public safety and convenience require, that a great number of the improvements that have been made have been the result of very considerable pressure from public opinion, from Parliament, and, I may also venture to say, from the Board of Trade, as representing the general public opinion of the country. I cannot forget all that has taken place of late years respecting the interlocking of signals and points, the block system, and other matters. Although I am willing to bear the strongest testimony, as far as I can properly
  1862
  do so, to the high merits of those who work the railway system, yet I must remind them that a good deal of their success in providing for the safety and comfort of the public has, after all, been owing to the pressure from out-of-doors. This, I think, is a matter of history which we should always remember when these subjects are discussed. Now, we must be very ignorant of human nature if we overlook the fact that, however honestly desirous the managers of these vast concerns may be to meet the requirements of the public, for a manager or engineer, or any of the great heads of departments in the railroads, to go before the board of directors, asking them, except under the pressure of a terrible accident, or with very good cause, to spend vast sums of money, in altering their plant, machinery, or anything else, is not a very agreeable thing for these gentlemen to do. Nor, again, can it be very agreeable to the directors themselves of these great concerns to go before a shareholders' meeting, and to say we are obliged to diminish your dividend, already, perhaps, not over large owing to bad times, because we want to spend, say £80,000, upon fitting brakes to all our engines and carriages, to use the figure which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) informed us would be the cost of the introduction of continuous brakes on his line. That £80,000 would represent a great lump, out of the earnings of the shareholders; so it is only human nature that people responsible to those who embark their money in these concerns should be a little shy of undertaking these large improvements, however favourable in the abstract they may be to public safety, unless great pressure is put upon them from outside. For that reason, we ought to be grateful to hon. Members who from time to time bring these matters of public safety and convenience before us in Parliament; and if I needed justification for this remark, I should be well content to rest it upon the tone which has been adopted by all railway directors to-night. There is hardly a director of high position connected with a leading line, who has spoken, that has not said that, on the whole, he is glad this pressure was put upon them. This is quite a sufficient reward for my right hon. Friend opposite, and quite a suffi-

  1863
  cient justification for a Motion of this kind. I have been asked, whether or not I should be inclined to encourage legislation on these specific points? I would ask hon. Members to consider carefully how we got the great results respecting interlocking, the block system, and other leading improvements, the importance of which is now generally acknowledged? We did not get these results by legislation. We got them in a different way; a way more in accord with the habits, feelings, and best traditions of the country. These improvements have not been ordered by Parliament, nor by the Board of Trade; but you have got them by throwing the strong light of publicity upon the action of the Companies as to these proceedings. You obliged them to make periodical Returns, so that the Companies felt that all they did in these matters would be widely known and widely discussed. Well, surely, after such successes, it would be a very rash thing on our part to depart from the long usage of the Board of Trade in this matter, which has led to such results, unless under pressure of some overwhelming necessity. Not only have we required these Returns, but, of course, a large part of our later system has been to establish a careful examination into all railway accidents, and a careful classification of the causes which we believe have led to these accidents. To sum up, our system has been to rely for bringing about improvements in the management and apparatus of our railways, upon careful examination into accidents by experts, under the direction of the State, upon the publicity of the results of such inquiries, and upon the publication by the railways of the course which they adopt as to the leading mechanical inventions, upon which experience has shown that the public safety chiefly depends. Now, I, for one, would never consent, for one moment, to stereotype by legislation, continuous brakes, or any part of the railway apparatus. It seems to me that that would be a most fatal course to take. No one will, I imagine, deny that the continuous brake of to-day, of which we may all be proud and may think the most perfect and scientific concern, may, and probably will, become antiquated in the year 1890, so that for Parliament to stereotype these inventions would be to strike a most terrible blow at the ad-
  1864
  vancement of the country. But I would go even further than this, and I say that it would be very rash for us, unless absolutely driven to it by the inaction of those responsible for the Companies, and by the requirements of the public safety, to lay down, by legislation, the conditions which the railroads should adopt with regard to what I may term this or any other article of their apparatus. I believe that if Parliament was to enact that certain conditions were necessary with regard to their brakes, we should run a very great danger of shaking the whole responsibility of the railway directors. Our policy, as a Government, is certainly not that of substituting State or central control for that of the individual or the locality: its aim is not to diminish, but rather to increase, the responsibility of all who manage the great industrial concerns of the country. And besides this, if we once lay down a Government minimum as to any requirements of this kind, we know as well as possible, by experience, that the Government minimum, in a very short time, becomes the maximum which is adopted by all those who are concerned in the matter; so that, if we were to say that all were to have a break which would draw up within 500 yards, you would find that the Railway Companies will never think of getting a brake which will draw up within 100yards; whereas, with the progress of invention, this end will pretty surely be attained, as we may be confident that if we do not stereotype the public opinion of the day the Companies will be compelled, under the present system of publicity, to aim at the highest possible perfection in these matters. Further, if you adopt the plan of laying down by legislation the conditions which the Companies must adopt as to brakes or any other such matters, I see, with alarm, looming in the distance a whole army of new Government Inspectors. If you say, by Act of Parliament, that such and such conditions must be fulfilled by the Companies, you must have somebedy to look out and see that the Railway Companies do fulfil these conditions; and, therefore, I say, I see looming before me an increasing army of Government Inspectors, with all the Continental system of minute Government interference and of State responsibility, which I should be very sorry to face, or in any way to encourage. Let us bear

  1865
  in mind that we have only to turn to the debates which have taken place on this subject in either House of Parliament, to assure ourselves that both sides in politics seem to be equally anxious to avoid unnecessary interference with railways. But, on the other hand, having said that much against State interference, I must beg the special attention of the House to one fact to which we must not shut our eyes, and that is this—that when the Board of Trade inquired carefully into this matter in 1877, they found that, on considering a term of years, three-fourths of the accidents might, according to the opinion of their skilled Inspectors, have been avoided if continuous brakes had been used. This is a thing which we cannot get over; it is a great fact, and one deserving most careful consideration. We surely, then, are bound to take steps to see that these evils are dealt with. What, then, are the steps upon which the Government at present rely? The means may appear to be small; but after what I said at the beginning as to the success of such measures, it is not small. I allude to the Act of Parliament which was passed last year, which obliges the Railway Companies to send a half-yearly Return as to continuous brakes, the carriages and engines fitted with them, and as to all the details connected with this subject as affecting their rolling stock. This may seem, perhaps, a small matter; but I need only refer to the interlocking of signals and points, and the block system, and remind hon. Gentlemen of what was the effect of that very same treatment as regards these important matters. I allude, of course, to the Act which obliged the Railway Companies to send annual Returns to the Board of Trade with regard to interlocking and the block system, for the purpose of their being laid before Parliament. I need only give two or three figures. With regard to the interlocking of points and signals, in 1870, 10 of the principal Companies, with a mileage of 8,000 miles, had from 27 to 40 per cent of their points interlocked. The Bill is passed, and what do we find at the end of 1878? The same Companies at the end of 1878, with 9,000 and odd miles, have from 44 to 56 per cent of their points interlocked. The fact is very remarkable and very satisfactory. In the same way with regard to the block system; while, in 1873, the same 10 Companies worked on the
  1866
  absolute block system from 16 to 77 per cent, at the end of 1878 they worked from 67 to 94 per cent, showing again a very remarkable result from the system of presenting Returns to Parliament. I cannot, therefore, but suppose that all will agree that we have good cause, from experience of the past, to look with confidence to the result of the Act of last year with respect to Returns of continuous brakes: and that the House will feel that I am not wrong when I say that the means which we have adopted to meet these deficiencies, which we lament and acknowledge, are not trifling or likely to be ineffectual. But, be that as it may, as far as I am concerned, owing to the great evils which I see in further Government interference, I must decline to take any further step at the present moment, until I see more of the operation of the Act of last year. It must not be forgotten that it has only been in operation for one year, and the Railway Companies may fairly say—"What you are bidding us to do is a very difficult and expensive undertaking. We confess we have taken a good deal of time about it, but then we did not think you were in earnest in the matter; we have each our peculiar difficulties connected with it, and we dallied, perhaps, with the subject somewhat; but now we see you and the public mean that the thing should be done, we have for some time past put our heads together for the purpose of consulting on improvements, and, therefore, we trust we shall be permitted without interference to carry on our undertaking, provided that we do so within a reasonable time." I would venture to remind my noble Friend the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), that it is not a mere question of fashion, as he suggested, with regard to continuous brakes or interlocking, or any such matters connected with our safety on railways. The fact of the public taking up this this matter or that arises from a much more serious reason. They watch the Reports of the Railway Inspectors who have gone into the causes of accidents. They observe that the lack of interlocking, or the lack of the block system, or of continuous brakes, has led to great loss of life; and they naturally feel that pressure must be put upon the Companies to adopt those improvements on their railways, which skilled Inspectors have said would save lives and have

  1867
  prevented terrible accidents. It is not that the fashion has passed, allow me to observe, with regard to the block system and interlocking, that makes it no longer necessary to make any fuss about them. The reason is a very simple one: the Act which necessitated Returns as to these matters being laid annually before Parliament has been successful; the victory of the public has been won, and this necessary apparatus has generally been adopted. A new issue has now arisen with reference to this serious matter of continuous brakes, owing to the same reason which led to the feeling as to interlocking, &c. I am willing to give every credit to the directors of Companies for their desire to do all they can; but I own that what has passed amongst them to-night would make me feel some little difficulty as to expecting agreement among them, unless subjected to some little pressure. Anyhow, the matter is far too serious to allow either Parliament or Government to wait indefinitely while the "battle of the brakes," as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Hick) called it, is being fought out. Other countries are coming to a decision. The evidence on that point is very clear. Germany, France, and other countries, are rapidly settling what continuous brakes they will adopt; and there is no reason why the high sentiment and public spirit of our English directors should not also come to a decision, and soon put us in the forefront of all others. I trust, then, that they will take a wise and sensible view of the position; and I shall conclude by expressing the confident hope of soon being able to congratulate them upon the battle of the brakes being over, upon peace being established, and the public security largely enhanced.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not endorse the view taken by the noble Lord, who appeared to be inclined to wait for accidents to happen, and then trust to a sense of shame to prevent their recurrence. That was but the policy of shutting the door after the horse was stolen. The noble Lord's objection to the Motion, on the ground that it would tie the companies down to one specified improvement, might be used as a plea against any kind of Parliamentary interference with the Railway Companies. The fact was too much overlooked that nine out of ten of the railway accidents which happened could be prevented by
  1868
  proper legislation. The real cause of the great number of accidents was the excessive speed at which railway trains were allowed to run. The immediate cause was, no doubt, irregularity; but the speed rendered regularity impossible. Some years ago, the risk as between trains running at 60 miles and those running at 30 miles an hour was calculated, and it was found that where the speed of 60 miles an hour was resorted to, it became 100 to 1 that the passenger instead of arriving at his destination a little later with sound limbs would have terminated his journey on a shutter, as against the chances of accidents, at the speed of 30 miles an hour. It was said the travelling public would object to a diminution of the speed; but it was the duty of Parliament to interfere for the protection of lunatics, and the man who would risk his life in a rapid train was little better than a lunatic. He, therefore, hoped the Government would at once undertake the responsibility of initiating legislation to prevent the further sacrifice of human life.

ARMY—SOLDIERS LN UNIFORM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL MURE, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from Moving the following Amendment:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take such steps as may seem most fitting to secure to all persons wearing Her Majesty's uniform in the Army, Navy, Marines, or Auxiliary Forces, or other of Her Majesty's Services, all the rights, privileges, and immunity from special or vexatious or exclusive regulations or practices as are enjoyed by Her Majesty's subjects not specially serving Her Majesty or enlisted in Her Majesty's sea or land forces, or wearing Her Majesty's uniform, in theatres, music, concert, or lecture halls, or other places of public resort under the control of the Lord Chamberlain, or licensed by magistrates, or under the control of any recognized authority, or in railways, trains, or steamboats, or other conveyances plying for hire, provided for the public use by companies or private persons under Acts of Parliament, or licensed by or under the control of magistrates of any other recognized authority;"
  said, that in theory all persons were equal in this country, and those who had to manage the travelling arrangements of the country, or who conducted theatres, had no right to make any difference between any class of Her Majesty's subjects. Some years ago this question came before the House of Commons, not with regard to places of amusement or

  1869
  of travelling, but with respect to the liberty of soldiers to obtain seats in the Strangers' Gallery to hear the debates, like other persons. Two orders were given by two hon. Members, one to a soldier in the Royal Artillery, and the other to a soldier of the 17th Lancers; but when they presented themselves at the Gallery of the House of Commons they were refused admission, simply because they wore attired in uniform. The matter was subsequently brought under the attention of the House. Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister at the time, and referred it to Lord Eversley, who was Speaker, and he said that although it was objectionable that soldiers wearing arms should be admitted, the objection did not apply to soldiers who did not wear arms. The consequence of that had been that soldiers had ever since been admitted to the Strangers' Gallery of the House of Commons when in uniform. In most foreign countries soldiers, instead of being subject to such insults and disabilities as they were in England, enjoyed particular privileges. They were allowed admission to the theatres at a lower rate than the general public, and they could travel in a superior class of carriage for a low rate. In this country, however, where it was most necessary to encourage good and respectable men to enter the Army, they found these curious disabilities existing. It might be said the reason was because, as at the time of the Duke of Wellington, the Army was recruited from the lowest class; but he was bound to say that reason no longer existed, and they ought to strive by every means in their power to put an end to the existing objectionable state of things. A few years ago, a corporal in the Coldstream Guards—a man of a somewhat superior character—married a young wife, who was also of a superior class. They were travelling together to the country, and the man desired to come over from Holyhead in the saloon of the steamer; but he was told that, while his wife could be allowed to do so, he could not be booked by the saloon, because he was attired in uniform. Another soldier had told him that on one occasion he formed one of a party of friends who applied for admission to the stalls of a theatre, and he was refused because he was in uniform, and he left the theatre in such a feeling that he was sorry he had ever entered the Army. The curious thing was, that
  1870
  if that soldier had put on plain clothes, he might have gained admission to any part of the theatre for which he could afford to pay; but, immediately he presented himself in Her Majesty's uniform, he was denied admission. Similar instances might be quoted in reference to seamen serving in the Royal Navy. Surely, something should be done in order to prevent a recurrence in places of public resort of such cases as he had referred to. If soldiers and sailors possessed the means to bring their grievances before the Law Courts, they would, he believed, obtain redress; but, unfortunately, they were not sufficiently well off to resort to the legal tribunals. Per haps the most painful part of the case which he was laying before the House was the fact that instances had occurred in which insult had been offered to the wearers of Her Majesty's uniform when in church. It would be difficult to find any place of regular public resort which was not in the Metropolis under the Lord Chamberlain, and in the Provinces under some local authority. It seemed to him that such outrages as were complained of might be prevented by the interference of the Lord Chamberlain and the local authorities. It was a shameful thing that men who, when leaving for foreign service, had been cheered to the echo by the public—men who, when abroad, fought with the utmost gallantry and devotion, behaving like heroes at Rorke's Drift and Isand-lana—should, on their return home, be liable to receive insult and contumely. He could only compare that with the treatment by a man of the world of his mistress, whom in private he professed unbounded admiration and regard for, but whom he "cut" if he met her while he was in the company of his family. He hoped that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War would give him a more satisfactory answer than that which had been so often made—namely, that the matter should be left to the good sense of the public. He wished strongly to impress on the Secretary of State for War the importance of taking some steps in the matter, either by framing bye-laws for places of amusement, or by providing in the licences granted for places of public resort, for the proper treatment of soldiers in uniform.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that as far as his personal feelings were concerned

  1871
  he entirely sympathized with the object which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view. He was equally with him distressed at the instances he had brought forward, though he was not in a position to judge of the truth of the last analogy which the hon. and gallant Member drew as to the regard in which the soldier was held. This matter had been brought before the House on several occasions; but, with a right appreciation of its own powers, the House did not undertake more work than it could fulfil; and he could not at that moment see that any advantage could be derived, even if the Forms of Parliament permitted it, from an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her to take certain stops with regard to a question in which private interests and private arrangements were so largely concerned. The wearing of a red coat ought, no doubt, to be considered an honourable badge of service, and the man who wore it ought not to be precluded from anything that his position and means in civil life, were he a civilian, would entitle him to. he could not entirely endorse the opinion of his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government had the power either to interfere with the bye-laws of railways or the conditions on which licences were granted; but the matter was one which deserved consideration, and they were indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for pressing it again on the attention of the House and the Government. It was a fact within his own knowledge that noncommissioned officers had been precluded from entering into various places of amusement when wearing uniform, and it had struck him with surprise that those who were interested in the subject had not combined to see whether in point of law the managers of public entertainments had the power to enforce such regulations. Such a course would do far more to settle the question than any Parliamentary action. It would not be wise for Parliament to attempt to exercise its powers unless they were satisfied that it could be fully carried out. He would warn the managers of public entertainments and other persons concerned, that the time might come when the public would not be satisfied with the existing state of affairs, and when they would insist on some such steps being taken as those indicated by his hon. and gallant Friend. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would
  1872
  accept his assurance of sympathy in the object he had in view, and rest content for the present with the public attention that had boon directed to it.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that his hon. and gallant Friend had done good service in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House, and he was well pleased at the answer that had been returned by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The Army was composed of a better class of persons than was formerly the case, and he contended that the Queen's uniform, so far from disgracing them, was an honour to them. He believed that it would be seen and allowed that these men ought to be admitted wherever other persons of the same position were allowed to go, so long as they conducted themselves properly.

NAVY—CASE OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BIGGAR, in rising to call attention to the claims of Mr. John Clare said, these claims were for various improvements alleged to have been introduced into iron ship-building, and adopted in the construction of Her Majesty's ships without due acknowledgment. As he could not move for a Committee on the present occasion, he should bring the case forward again and again until he succeeded in getting an independent inquiry into the justice of Mr. John Clare's claims.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that, some years ago, when Mr. Clare sent in a statement of his claims to the Admiralty, the latter considered them on their merits and decided against them. Mr. Clare then brought an action before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, and claimed a large sum as compensation for inventions. His claims were disallowed, and he then made application for a new trial, which was unanimously refused. He afterwards petitioned the Queen, and that Petition was referred to the Admiralty, who subsequently referred it. to the Home Office, stating that the matter had been already tried before the Lord Chief Justice, and that if Mr. Clare had claims which had not been decided upon, the Courts were open to him. A Motion for an inquiry into his grievance had been made in the House, and negatived. In 1874 he sent in a Memorial, which was referred to

  1873
  the Law Officers of the Crown, who reported that he had no claim whatever. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) believed Mr. Clare to be a very clever man; but, in the face of all these adverse decisions, he would be pardoned from entering into the do-tails. He had great sympathy with Mr. Clare as a public inventor; but he had no case, and he was afraid the Admiralty could do nothing for him.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there was a good deal more in the case of Mr. Clara than the majority of the House supposed. Mr. Clare's invention was the first thing that rendered possible the building of our enormous ironclads, and he (Mr. Parnell) regretted the position taken up by the Admiralty on the question. It would have been much more satisfactory if the merits of the case had been gone into by the Secretary to the Admiralty, for it would then have appeared how untenable was the position which the Admiralty had taken.

IRELAND—CARRICK-ON-SUlR BRIDGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELL, in calling attention to the proposed blocking of the river trade of Carrick-on-Suir by the erection of a bridge below the town unprovided with a portcullis in place of the present bridge above the town, explained that the bridge which was about to be erected would have the effect of preventing ships discharging their cargoes at the town quays, which they could do at the present time. Such a proceeding was wanton and vexatious. The Grand Juries concerned had directed the works to which he objected quite oblivious to the interests of the town. It would be the same thing to build a bridge near the outlet of the Thames which would prevent shipping passing up to the City. It was impossible to get the authorities to review what they had done, for, like the famous Justices in the rhyme—"What they says they always says." They were told the Lord Lieutenant could give a remedy for the grievance; but it was entirely within his Excellency's discretion to re-consider these complicated plans, and he hoped the House would prevent the carrying out of the works which would condemn Carrick-on-Suir to hopeless failure.
  MR. MELDONthought the subject had been most properly brought forward. It was a decided grievance. The matter
  1874
  was one in which the Lord Lieutenant had ample jurisdiction to pronounce a decision, and suggested that, before any further steps were taken, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with respect to it should be taken. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would take care that the matter was looked into, even if he could not give an assurance that the wishes of the inhabitants of Carrick-on-Suir would be yielded to, and that the bridge would not be built in the wanton manner proposed.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the question had been referred to the Irish Law Officers, and in accordance with their opinion the Irish Government thought that they ought not to interfere with the decision of the judicial tribunal by whom the question of the new position of the bridge was considered. All persons interested had access to that tribunal, and its decision met with the approval of the great mass of the people concerned, although, no doubt, there were some who took a different view. He could not see from the papers that there was any reason to regret the course which was adopted in the matter by the Irish Government.
  MAJOR NOLANthought the Government were responsible, because they had made no practical efforts to reform the Grand Jury Laws, which would enable the people to prevent such things being done.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, it seemed a most monstrous and preposterous thing that a Grand Jury—an irresponsible body, representing nobody—should have the power of interfering with the traffic and checking the development of a place that might otherwise come to be a seaport town.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, those were the instances which illustrated the deficiencies of local government in Ireland, and which should guide them in framing a system of local government more in accordance with the interests and feelings of the country. The great complaint against the Grand Jury system was that it continually perpetrated such jobs, and he called this a job without hesitation, because they could not be; called to account by those who found I the money. It would, from a sentimental point of view, be a thing which they should all deplore if the people were to blow up the middle arch of the obnoxious bridge pending the return of

  1875
  a lucid interval to Her Majesty's Government when they should have sense enough to deal with this question. He appealed to the Government to give the terms of the legal decision which had been referred to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)expressed his surprise at the tone of the debate, and spoke of the bridge as an improvement by substituting a new bridge for an old one. The whole matter had been fully considered, and there was now no power on the part of the Grand Jury or the Lord Lieutenant to re-open the question. On the merits of the question there was no reason why it should be re-opened. The usual traffic of Carrick-on-Suir was by means of barges, and a sea-going ship would be quite a novelty there.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 150.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. PARNELLthought it was very unreasonable for the Government to proceed with this Bill at that time of the evening. He submitted that it was not fair to ask hon. Members, and especially in view of the events of that evening, the Irish Members, to stop up until that time of night to enable the Government to inflict taxation on the people of a country, of whose interests they had shown themselves so entirely unmindful that evening. He did not consider he would be justified in remaining up any longer to pass this Bill, when the conduct of the Government in relation to Ireland had been scandalous in the extreme. The Government were not entitled to the assistance of Irish Members, when they had that night added another to the long list of instances of obstruction offered by the Government to Irish Business. He moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 94: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
  Clauses 15 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Provisions for the collection of income tax for the year 1880–81).
  MR. LEIGHTONsaid, this Bill was intended to impose a tax on inhabited houses, but in reality it taxed uninhabited houses. He did not object to that, so long as all houses, whether inhabited or not, were subject to it. But last year, through the powerful influence of the Chambers of Commerce, all places of business where no one resided, except a care-taker, were freed from the tax, even although they were houses in which extremely large and profitable businesses were carried on. He proposed to place Mechanics' Institutions on the same footing. They were non-residental, except that a care-taker lived, sometimes, on the premises; the only difference between them that he could see was that whilst the houses of business belonged to the masters, these places were maintained by the men. The factory was a place for work, the Institute for culture and education. It was difficult to draw a distinction in principle between them, and most unwise to admit class exemptions, without applying the principle equally. His Amendment was not a claim for exemption from taxation, but a claim for equality in taxation. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not meet him with any dilatory plea about the unwisdom of limiting the area of taxation. If that were a true argument, they ought to repeal the Act of last year, which first put into this annual Bill the exemption of houses of business.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Every house which is occupied as a Mechanics' Institute shall he exempted from Duties by the said Commissioners, upon proof of the fact to their satisfaction, and this exemption shall take effect although a servant or other person may dwell in such house for the protection thereof."—(Mr. Leighton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry that he could not accept the proposed Amendment. The fact was that this house tax might be frittered away by continual exemp-

  1877
  tions following on exemptions. No sooner was a concession made than, instead of satisfaction being given, a new claim was immediately introduced. First of all, the tax was taken off houses occupied merely for business purposes, then it was removed from houses used merely for professional purposes, and then followed other exemptions. Every man said, "My case is as strong as my neighbour's," with the result that if that went on much longer they would have no tax at all. He could see no reason why Mechanics' Institutions should be exempted. They were, no doubt, most valuable institutions; but there was no clause exempting them which would not exempt also clubs, lecture-rooms, and all sorts of buildings of a similar character, until they got to clubs employed for social purposes, and rooms also used for artistic and social purposes. He was sorry he could not consent to this Amendment; but, to his mind, its object was to carry still further a system of exemption, which had already proceeded far too rapidly, and which they ought to try and check rather than extend.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINunderstood that this exemption already applied to warehouses whore a servant slept all night, or, at least, that they were only charged at the value of a house, such as a person of that position might be supposed to sleep in, and not on the rate-able value of the whole premises. The grievance complained of here was, that a working man in charge of one of these Mechanics' Institutions, who, under ordinary circumstances, would live in a house of the value, say, of £10, submitted the institution, by the mere fact of his living there, to a charge on the rate-able value of the whole place, which was, perhaps, £200 or £300. Why this should be so he could not understand. They were not asking for a new exemption, or that the principle of exemption should be carried any further. They merely asked that a principle already adopted and acted upon in one case should be applied to another exactly similar, and very deserving of the attention of the Committee.
  MR. COURTNEYthought the case might be carried even further, though he spoke with some diffidence on the subject, because he was very imperfectly informed on the matter. If he understood the law aright, a, house occupied for purposes of science and art was ex-
  1878
  empt from house duty, provided it was exclusively so occupied. A case of that kind was, he remembered, tried some time ago. The Philosophic Society of Cambridge had been exempt under that rule for a very long time; but the duty was subsequently charged on the ground that the Society did not come within the scope of the exemption, because one of the rooms was used as a reading room. He understood that places used for Mechanics' Institutions were exempt, if no one lived on the premises. Further, if a person lived on business premises simply as a care-taker, he understood that the premises were exempt from duty, except as to a small amount. If I that was the case in regard to business promises, he could not see why the same exemption should not be extended to Mechanics' Institutions. It was not a question of the extension of an exemption, it was merely the application of a principle already adopted. For his part, he thought it was rather to the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage proposals which would place assessments on a definite, intelligible footing; because he might, by-and-bye, find this tax a strong weapon in his hands, as the tax was a much less objectionable one than the Income Tax. He wished to know if the law had been rightly interpreted; for if it had, he thought a very strong case had been made out.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought some further answer was required from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could quite understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unwilling to give up any portion of his Revenue when he had a falling Revenue to deal with; but the demand now made was so modest, and so exactly on a principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that to reply, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, that he was unwilling to give up the tax, was hardly sufficient. He believed these Mechanics' Institutes did much for the Revenue in another way, for they promoted in a man that feeling of respect for himself, of sobriety and uprightness, which, of course, it was the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as possible, to promote. That being so, the very small amount given up by this proposed remission was hardly worth considering. It had been established that when a person lived in an otherwise uninhabited

  1879
  house of business merely for the purpose of taking care of it, he was not compelled to pay the full amount of the duty on the value of the house. That being so, some other answer, besides the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unwilling to give up this tax, was necessary to explain why a difference was made between houses of business and Mechanics' Institutions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not precisely know what the point was to which the hon. Baronet alluded; but there seemed to him to be a considerable difference between the case dealt with last year and that now before them. The object then was to do justice as between different classes of traders. One class lived in the house in which they carried on their business; while others lived in the suburbs, and left their business houses to care-takers. The alteration was made, therefore, to put the two cases on an equality. But in the case of Mechanics' Institutions, and other buildings more or less cognate, that argument did not apply. Of course, they might say that a certain class of building ought to be exempt; but then that could be carried on from Mechanics' Institutions to all the Clubs of London, and any other institutions which were in any way-analogous or cognate. It would be a great pity to-fritter away taxes in that way. To grant this exemption now would only pave the way for further deductions in the future, a thing which the House ought by no means to encourage. He saw no reason for making this special concession, and, therefore, could not concede it.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINbegged to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet answered the Question as to what was now the state of the law with regard to Scientific Institutions. He should also like to know what was the case with schools? A care-taker resided in a great many schools; but he did not think in those cases that the tax was levied on the full rateable value.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, the principle on which the tax was based was very plain. The tax was on inhabited houses, and the various exceptions were recited in the Preamble. First, premises occupied solely for the purposes of trade were exempt. Then came the further
  1880
  exemption of houses used and occupied in the greater part for the purposes of trade, but occupied also by a care-taker. Then came a further exemption of houses occupied for certain professions; and now it was sought to extend the exemption further than it had ever been carried before, and to include houses which were neither occupied for trades nor for professions. Until these Mechanics' Institutions were brought within the present law, the tax must apply. Of course, if no one lived there, they were exempt, and did not come within the purview of the tax.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the state of the law with regard to schools and museums?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFORD)said, they were exempt, because they were not inhabited houses.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked if a Philosophical Society was subject to the tax where a care-taker resided on the premises? Because, if it was, then the distinction between it and the Mechanics' Institutions seemed too fine a one to be drawn. In many instances that he knew of, a Mechanics' Institute was a purely Scientific or Philosophical Society. A peculiar claim might also be made on behalf of these institutions, as they wore mainly supported by the working classes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought this was hardly a point to be urged; for the houses in which the labouring classes lived were below the level of the tax, and the labouring classes were also exempt from Income Tax. If Mechanics' Institutions were exempt, he did not see how they could fail from applying the principle to all other places cognate in character, though they might be in the hands of much wealthier persons.
  MR. E. J. REEDdenied that there was any connection between these places and clubs. They were entirely different in character, and it would be quite impossible to include the one with the other.
  MR. GILESsaid, he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certainly, if Mechanics' Institutions were to be exempt, there could be no reason for refusing exemption to many other similar institutions.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought the request made by the Mover of the

  1881
  Motion a very reasonable one, and he presumed it would not have been made if it had not represented a practical inconvenience. He presumed the hon. Member knew what the state of the law was as to these Philosophical Societies, and lie wished that he would tell them his view of it.
  MR. LEIGHTONsaid, that the ground on which the alteration in favour of houses of business was made last year was that these houses were not really occupied as places of residence. It seemed to him that the Mechanics' Institutes were on exactly the same footing.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 55: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 119.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he proposed to withdraw the clause, as it had been represented to him, since its introduction, that it would be exceedingly inconvenient, and would materially interfere with a great many persons. He would afterwards propose an Amendment enabling the Inland Revenue to appoint.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 (Appointment of collectors for income tax under Schedules (A.) and (B.) and laud tax and inhabited house duties).
  MR. STANTONasked for some explanation of Sub-section 3. It seemed rather strange to say that if in any year an office was not filled up the appointment should lapse. Would it not be much better to put it in the hands of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue once for all?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, replied, that complaints were constantly made by persons forced to serve of the hardship imposed on them, and therefore the Bill allowed the Inland Commissioners, on persons refusing to serve, to appoint collectors. At present, the collectors were appointed by the localities, and they got a percentage for collection of the duty. The Government proposed to appoint their own officers to do the work; but it would, of course, be manifestly unfair to dispossess persons who had given up their incomes to take this work. Therefore, the power of appointment would still remain in the
  1882
  localities; and only when they had refused to exercise it, would it revert to the Department. But when it had once done so, the localities would never again have the power of appointment; because, otherwise, Government might go to the expense of appointing a staff of officers one year, and find itself saddled with them and their pensions the next.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, it simply came to this—that the collectors would be appointed as before; and only in the event of their refusal to serve, or not caring about the work, would the Commissioners undertake the work.
  MR. WHITWELLknew the task of collection to be very repulsive to many individuals who were appointed. he wished to know whether the appointments would still be compulsory?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that the localities would exercise their powers just as before, but the collectors might refuse to serve; and in the event of the office not being filled up before the date mentioned, the Government would undertake the work.
  Clause agreed to.

  PART IV.
  Excise.
  Clause 25 (Police proceedings for penalties in relation to dogs).
  MR. DODSONobserved, that certain words at the end of the clause included the Small Penalties Act of 1865, although in that Act it was declared that its provisions should not apply to any penalties imposed by any Act relating to the Inland Revenue. Therefore, they were incorporating an Act which did not apply. Had they not better leave those words out, especially, as to make the complications more complete, they were about to pass a measure (The Summary Jurisdiction Bill) which repealed the Small Penalties Act?
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, by the Act of 1878, dogs kept by farmers and shepherds for tending sheep and cattle were exempted from the tax; but that exemption did not apply to dogs kept for the same purpose by graziers, dairymen, and butchers. He would ask whether the same rule ought not to apply? He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the unwisdom of extending exemptions; but in this case the exemption was of dogs kept for

  1883
  leading sheep and cattle, not of dogs kept by farmers and shepherds.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that this ease very fairly illustrated the mischief arising from exemptions. He could only say that this matter was fully discussed, and the words in the Act represented the decision of the House; while, if they were to go on making and extending exemptions, he did not know where they would stop. No doubt, there were many persons who kept dogs simply for their usefulness; but it had been thought wise to make the exemption stop where it did.
  MR. WHITWELLpointed out that the police prosecuted in cases where licences had not been taken out, acting under the direction of the Inland Revenue Office; but if they failed to secure a conviction, then the cost fell upon the Police Fund. He thought this was unfair, and ought to be altered.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, but for this system there would be no check on prosecutions. It worked very well, for he had had many cases before him, and the police never failed to secure a conviction.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD), in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) explained that these words were put in to settle a doubt as to the present law. It was doubtful whether the prosecutions should be under the Police Act or Jarvis's Act, and these words were inserted for the purpose of clearing up the matter.
  MR. DODSONremarked, that the clause gave the Justices power to act under the Small Penalties Act, although in the 7th clause of the Act it was enacted that it should not apply to any Revenue case. Therefore, in order to make the matter clear, and to avoid ambiguity, they ought to add the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the seventh clause of the Act."
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 10, after Clause 24, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Parishes formed for Poor Law purposes may be made parishes for the purposes of certain taxes.)
  "Where in England under the authority of Parliament any part of a parish or place has been formed into a new parish or place for the
  1884
  purposes of Poor Law administration, or any parish or place, or part of a parish or place, has been amalgamated with or included within the boundaries of another parish or place for the said purposes, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, if in their discretion they think fit, by order in writing, direct that such new parish or place, or such parish or place with which, or within the boundaries of which any parish or place, or part of a parish or place has been amalgamated or included, shall be a parish fir place for which a separate assessment of the Inhabited House Duties and of the Duties of Income Tax shall be made, and for which assessors and collectors may be appointed for the purpose of assessing and collecting the said Duties.
  "In ease any parish or place or part of a parish or place in the jurisdiction of one body of Commissioners of Income Tax is amalgamated with or included within the boundaries of a parish or place in the jurisdiction of another body of Commissioners of Income Tax, such order shall have the effect of transferring the jurisdiction to such last-mentioned body."
  The hon. Gentleman said, the object of the clause was to enable the Inland Revenue, as far as possible, to make the areas of Imperial and local taxation coextensive. Some time ago the Local Government Board acquired statutory powers to adjust boundaries, and it was desirable that the Inland Revenue Department should have power to make similar charges. A case in point had recently occurred in the neighbourhood of Hull, where some common land belonging to various parties had been built on and made into a populous district. The Local Government Board had made that into a separate parish; and, of course, it was necessary that the Inland Revenue Board should have power to make their areas correspond.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD MR. J. G. HUBBARD moved, in page 10, after Clause 24, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Particulars of demand note.)
  "The collectors of House Duty and Income Tax under Schedules (A) and (13) shall in the demand note delivered previous to payment, and in the receipt given subsequently to payment of the Duty or Tax, distinctly describe the property and specify the amount of the assessment and the rate at which the Duty or Tax is charged upon such assessment."
  The right hon. Gentleman said, that the proposal was so obviously just and fair, that he did not suppose his proposition would be resisted. On the demand note for taxes was merely at present given the name and amount, and the receipt

  1885
  provided none of the explanations he suggested. It was said that this information was not required in the receipt, and it was sufficient if it were given in the demand note; but he entirely dissented from, that view, and thought it was far more essential to he given there, for, otherwise, there was no means of ascertaining, unless the demand note were also filed, what was the amount of that assessment or the rate of charge. This was opposed to anything like regularity, and he had known a landlord pay on these receipt notes for several years in excess of what was right, because he had no means of ascertaining the correctness of the amount or of the figures given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would do great good if he would remove one of the most foolish inconsistences in the Act, especially as the alteration would involve, practically, neither difficulty nor expense.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfeared that his right hon. Friend a little underrated the expense which this alteration would cause, for he was told that it would put the Office to a great deal of trouble and some considerable expense. At the same time, he was prepared to admit that it was quite reasonable that the demand note should contain these statements. He did not quite see the necessity for setting out the demand in the same way in the receipt note. When goods wore bought at a shop the items were set out in the account; but they were not repeated in the receipt. Therefore, he would be willing to accept the clause, with the exception of the words extending its operation to a receipt note.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDpointed out, that his right hon. Friend had forgotten the great point he made, that the landlord only got the receipt-note. he hoped, for the sake of saving a few pence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not refuse to accept the full clause. He must object to taking such a boon as offered. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give him full justice, he would prefer to let the law remain.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYremarked, that the illustration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not affect this question; because in the case of the tradesman, when the receipt was given the matter was at an end and clone with, while here the receipt was wanted for a
  1886
  third party, the landlord, who was required to make a deduction without any proof of the correctness of the figures. The proposal was so reasonable, that he hoped his right hon. Friend would divide.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he demand note would be in the possession of the tenant, and he could show both to the landlord.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYreplied, that even then there would be no means of identifying the two, unless the receipt bore the same number as the demand note.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsuggested that the details would be the same.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (WHIT- TINGTON COMMON) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill, to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain Lands known as Whittington Marshes and Whittington Hurst, situate in the parish of Whittington, in the county of Stafford, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to he brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common)* (107): Inclosure Provisional Order (East Stainmore Common)* (108); Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Commons)* (109); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Killarney, &c.)* (110); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Dorset, &c.)* (111): Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Gloucester and Hereford)* (112): Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.)* (113); Local Government Provisional Orders (Castleton by Rochdale, &c.)* (114); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment* (115).
Second Reading—Costs Taxation (House of Commons)* (99).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Waterford, &c.)* (91); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bothwell)* (92); West India Loans* (85).
Their Lordships met;—and having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.