Sitting of 3 June 1880

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir John Lubbock, baronet, for the London University.
SELECT COMMITTEE—London Water Supply, appointed; Merchant Shipping, Sir Harcourt Johnstone discharged; Secretary Sir"William Harcourt, Mr. Charles Palmer, Mr. Georgo Bentinck, Mr. James Stewart, and Mr. Stuart Wortley addsd.
PRIVATE BILL—Select Committee—Liverpool Corporation Water, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading— Representation of the People (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment*[208].
Second Reading—Employers' Liability [118]; Salmon and Freshwater Fishery Laws Amendment [137]; Judicial Factors (Scotland)*[162].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Bankruptcy Act Amendment [163],
Several Members took and subscribed the Oath.

QUESTIONS.

  PRISONS ACT—STAFFORD PRISON.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Report of the Visiting Committee of the Stafford Prison lately issued, wherein it is stated that a convicted felon had been flogged for refusing to be photographed; and if he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that by Rule 58 in the Schedule of the Prisons Act of 1865, Justices had the power of ordering any prisoner convicted of felony to receive corporal punishment for repeated offences against prison discipline. Another Act gave prison authorities the right to have the photograph of a prisoner taken, either at the time of his entrance into prison or subsequently. In the case referred to in the Question, the Justices had acted distinctly in accordance with the discretionary power which they possessed. He might observe that photographing was a very necessary process in connection with the administration of justice.

  UNREFORMED CORPORATIONS-LEGISLATION.
  MR. DAVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the Report of the Royal Commission on Unreformed Corporations, with a view to legislation, for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of that Report?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the attention of the Government had been so directed; but his hon. Friend would see that it would be
  1072
  impossible to introduce a measure on the subject this Session, although he hoped it might be dealt with on some future occasion.

  SCIENCE AND ART—INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. D. M'LARENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will introduce into the Supplementary Estimates a Grant towards the completion of the Industrial National Museum for Scotland, for which no Building Grant has been made during the last six years, and the present time being peculiarly favourable, from the very low prices at which building contracts can now be obtained?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend has in his Question asked whether the Government intend to introduce a certain matter into the Supplementary Estimates. The Question of my hon. Friend seems rather to presuppose that every year there will be a body of Supplementary Estimates presented, which I am sorry to say occasionally, from the necessity of the case, is apt to happen, but which, at the same time, never ought to be noticed without bearing in mind that all Supplementary Estimates are exceedingly adverse to Parliamentary control. On that account I am afraid I am unable to say that anything can be done in the nature of Supplementary Estimates with this subject during the present year. My hon. Friend is aware of, and I need not trouble the House with, the circumstances which completely account for the non-action—I will not call it the inaction—of the Government during the last few years. I do agree with my hon. Friend, to a considerable extent, that the season now before us may be a favourable one for re-considering the question; and in the winter, before the next Estimates are framed, it will be our duty to take it seriously into our consideration, and to determine whether we ought or ought not to make some proposal to Parliament.

  THE COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH FRANCE.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give any information with reference to the present position of

  1073
  the French Commercial Treaty negotiations; and, particularly, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that the export bounty system shall no longer be maintained to the detriment of British and of Irish sugar refining, as well as to the serious injury of our West Indian possessions; and also, whether, as regards Foreign produce generally, Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the abandonment of the "Surtaxe d'entrepot," so that importations into France, via the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, shall no longer be placed at a disadvantage as compared with similar goods when imported direct?
  SIR CHAELE8 W. DILKE: By a declaration signed at Paris on the 10th of October, 1879, and laid before Parliament this year, it is provided that the existing Commercial Treaties between Great Britain and France shall remain in force until six months after the promulgation of the New French General Tariff, which is now under discussion in the French Legislature. No formal negotiations for a new Treaty are yet taking place; but communications are passing, and Her Majesty's Government are not without hope that they may result in the conclusion of a Treaty which will further develop the friendly relations between the two countries. The question of sugar bounties is under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House, and until they have reported it has been decided to suspend action in the matter. The question of the French surtaxe d'entrepêt will be treated in the course of any commercial negotiations with France.

  THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. O' DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Cabinet has any intention of altering the religious character of the Oath of Allegiance; and whether, in this case, steps will also be taken to relieve the Sovereign from the corresponding obligations of the Coronation Oath?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have not taken into consideration any question in connection with the alteration of the Coronation Oath.

  INDIA (FINANCE)—THE LATE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If he has reason to believe that there are financial irregularities on the receipt side as well as on the expenditure side of the late Indian Budget; and, whether the reported extraordinary increase of opium revenue was in any degree due to what may be called excess sales, whereby the average stock of prepared opium in the Government stores was reduced by anticipatory purchases to the probable loss of revenue in succeeding years; and, if so, whether he will inquire as to the causes which stimulated such an unusual demand?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no reason to believe that there are any financial irregularities on the receipt side of the Indian Budget. At page 85 of the Papers recently presented to Parliament regarding the Estimates for the war in Afghanistan will be found a Table showing that the revenue for the year ended on the 31st of March last is now believed to be less by about £82,000 than was estimated in February. The increase of opium revenue in 1879–80 above the Budget Estimate was in February taken at £1,900,000; but it is now believed to have been about £1,800,000, of which, perhaps, about £300,000 may be attributed to the sale of an unusual number of chests of opium in Calcutta. The policy of the Government has been for several years to accumulate a reserve which should enable them to depend on a regular stock for sale, irrespective of the fluctuations in the crop of any one year. At the beginning of the year 1879, there being a large reserve in store, it was determined to sell 60,000 chests during the calendar year; but it was at the same time announced that, from the 1st of January, 1880, only 4,700 chests a month, or 56,400 in the year—which is about the average crop in recent years—would be sold, and that no alteration of the monthly amount sold would be made without a twelvemonth's notice. The sales in the official year 1879–80 were 59,100 chests, or 2,700 above the amount now fixed. This slight reduction of the stock in hand, which on the 1st of January, 1880, was 81,583 chests, is not likely to cause any loss of revenue in succeeding years.

  EGYPT—REVIVAL OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the statement that the Khedive and his officers have permitted the resuscitation of the slave trade in Darfour and the other provinces of Central and Equatorial Africa, and that every order given by Colonel Gordon concerning its suppression has been cancelled; whether any information on the subject has been received from the European Commission appointed to carry out the Convention regarding slavery concluded between Egypt and this Country; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take all reasonable means to secure the performance on the part of Egypt of her public and international obligations in this respect?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The most recent information received by Her Majesty's Government from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Egypt does not bear out the statement contained in the hon. Member's Question; but, on the contrary, is to the effect that in the month of April last, on the arrival of a slave caravan at Siout, 250 persons connected with it were arrested, of whom 34 wore detained as prisoners; 68 slaves were taken, and subsequently 24 more, all of whom received papers of manumission. Moreover, the Governor of Siout and the head of the Slave Bureau at that place are to be dismissed and tried by court martial; the Slave Bureaux to be re-organized so as to render the Governors of the places in which they are situated responsible for their efficiency; and the caravan routes to be watched by a military force under the command of Count Edward della Sala, an Italian gentleman of high character and ability, and formerly in the Austrian Army, to whom, as well as to the Governor General of the Soudan, Reouf Pasha, the most stringent orders have been issued by the Khedive for the suppression of the slave trade. We have no knowledge of any "European Commission" appointed to carry out the Egyptian Slave Trade Convention. Her Majesty's Government will certainly do all in their power to secure its complete execution.

  IRELAND—COMPENSATION FOR AGRARIAN OUTRAGES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What steps Her Majesty's Government intends to take to compensate those persons who have been sufferers from personal injuries caused by agrarian outrages since the last assizes, and who have served all the requisite notices, and incurred legal expenses, but who, owing to the expiration of the Peace Preservation Act, are now debarred from bringing forward their claims before the grand juries of counties?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he had no information as to any such persons as those referred to. No Assizes in Ireland took place before July, and it was not necessary that any notices should be served until 14 days before the Assizes. Notices, if any, served before the 20th of May must have been served on the mere chance of the Act being continued or re-enacted; and, if served subsequently to the 20th of May, must have been served with the full knowledge that the Act would not be continued. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government did not feel called upon to make compensation, and they had received no claims.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF WILLIAM M'CULLOCH.
  MR. MACLIVEEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a sentence of four months' imprisonment passed by Sheriff Leo, of Glasgow, on William M'Culloch, an express driver in the employ of the Caledonian Railway Company; and, whether, having regard to the facts that the collision, which occurred on January 24th, and for which he was tried, was occasioned through the unexpected failure of Clarke and Webb's patent brake, with which the train was fitted, and to the unimpeachable character for carefulness, attention to duty, and sobriety of M'Culloch for 33 years, he is prepared to recommend that the remainder of M'Culloch's term of imprisonment should be remitted?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that before his hon. Friend answered the Question, he had another to ask on another part of

  1077
  the case under notice—namely, whether it was true that after the extraordinary sentence passed on this man at Glasgow, he was removed to the penitentiary at Perth, handcuffed and in the company of felons, and whether the hon. Gentleman would take measures to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that in the second portion of the first Question it was assumed that the collision occurred in consequence of the unexpected failure of Clarke and Webb's patent brake. Whether that failed or not, it was undoubted that it was owing to the carelessness of the driver in overrunning the signals that he required to put it in use at all. If he had not overrun the signals, the ordinary hand-brake would have been sufficient to arrest the progress of the train. After a careful consideration of the whole circumstances of this case, and notwithstanding that the offence was one of much gravity, his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had thought fit, having regard to the long period during which M'Culloch had borne an irreproachable character, to remit two months of the term of his imprisonment. This had been done with the full assent of the Sheriff and of the Lord Advocate. As to the Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, he had not had Notice of it long enough to obtain full information. He had caused an inquiry to be made, and had referred to the Scotch Commissioners of Prisons to see what was their practice when prisoners were being transferred from one place to another. In England the general practice was that the prisoners were secured by handcuffs, or in some similar manner. He would be glad to give the information to the right hon. Gentleman when he received it.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES (REORGANIZATION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, When he will be in a position to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee which has recently been inquiring into the re-organization of the Royal Marines?
  MR. SHAW LEEEVRE: I am unable at present to give a definite reply-to the noble Lord. The Report to which
  1078
  he alludes is a Departmental Report dealing with a very important subject. It has only just been presented to the Admiralty, and Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues have not yet been able to decide what action they will take upon it. Till then I shall be unable to say whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY-LEGISLATION.
  MR. HARCOURTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to regulate the Conservancy of Rivers, especially in relation to the damage done to land through floods?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, his hon. Friend was, no doubt, well acquainted with the difficulties by which the question was surrounded. There were some points of great importance connected with it which must be expected to lead to considerable discussion; and in the circumstances it would not, he thought, be possible to pass a Bill dealing with it in the present Session.

  HARES AND RABBITS BILL.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as the Hares and Babbits Bill was only delivered yesterday, he will postpone the Second Reading until after the 8th of June, in order to allow the Chambers of Agriculture to express their opinion upon it at the Central Council Meeting held in London on that day?
  LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, looking at the fact that the Hares and Rabbits Bill contains provisions which override the principle of free contract, and seeing that the Bill was only delivered to Members on the 2nd instant, he will postpone the Second Reading for a week?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the Hares and Rabbits Bill was the Bill which was unanimously recommended by the Chambers of Agriculture through Mr. Clare Sewell Read. The Bill contained provisions which would interfere with freedom of contract. He had no desire to hurry on the Bill unduly; but he hoped to be able to take the second reading on Thursday next.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACCOUNT—LEGISLATION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intends to propose any measure for the reduction of the accumulated deficiency in the Friendly Societies' Account similar to that which he has proposed in respect of the Saving Banks' Account?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, some measure of the kind will undoubtedly be requisite. It is not a matter of necessity during the present year; but, at the same time, if time permits, I shall be glad to introduce a measure of that kind during the present Session. At any rate, it must be attended to at an early period next Session in order to provide the funds necessary for meeting the calls which will arise.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can say why it is thought necessary to have policemen present at every railway station in Ireland on the arrival and departure of every train; and, whether any similar regulation exists with regard to the arrival and departure of trains in England?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With a view to watching or capturing criminals who might be endeavouring to escape it has been the practice of policemen in Ireland to attend the arrival and departure of railway trains when the police barracks are within half a mile of the station, and where their so doing did not interfere with their duties. The country police in England, unlike the Irish Constabulary, are not controlled by the Government, and each town makes the regulations for its own force. I am unable to say if similar regulations for attendance at trains exist in England.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM IRELAND.
  MR. LOWTHERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether cattle sent from Ireland to the port of Barrow-in-Furness are inspected either on their departure from Ireland or on their arrival in England; and, if not inspected, if he would explain the reason?
  MR. MUNDELLA: All cattle exported from Ireland to Great Britain are inspected at the port of embarkation in Ireland by a Government veterinary Inspector. If he finds the cattle to be free from disease, he gives a certificate to that effect. When that certificate is given a licence is issued by a Government licensing officer for the exportation of the cattle to the port in Great Britain specified in the licence. The animals so certified are also branded before being shipped. Cattle presented for shipment to Barrow-in-Furness are inspected and certified to be free from disease by a Government veterinary surgeon before exportation in the same way as all other cattle exports from Ireland to Great Britain.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACT (1855).
  MR. RITCHIEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in parishes in the Metropolis having no paid vestry clerk, the churchwarden is not entitled to legal assistance in conducting the election of vestrymen and auditors under "The Metropolis Management Act, 1855;" and, whether, when the costs incurred by the churchwarden have been taxed and allowed by the clerk of the peace of the county, and the vestry have made an order for payment thereof, as the expenses of publishing notices and making the return at the election of vestrymen and auditors under the twenty-fourth section of that Act, the overseers paying the same are liable to have the amount disallowed in their accounts?
  MR. DODSON: I presume that this Question has reference to the hamlet of Ratcliffe, in the Stepney Union, in the accounts of the overseers of which the auditorhasreeentlydisallowed£917 s. 8d., part of a sum of £15 1s. 8d., on the ground that there is no legal authority for employing a solicitor to conduct the election of vestrymen under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. The case is now before the Board on appeal, who are awaiting a further communication from the parochial authorities on the subject, and it would be premature to express any opinion upon the legal point before deciding the appeal. With regard to the second Question, the reply is that the Board have been advised by the Law Officers of the late Government that the

  1081
  taxation of the costs by the Clerk of the Peace and the order for payment by the Vestry do not deprive the auditor of his jurisdiction with respect to the allowance or disallowance of the expenditure when charged in the overseers' accounts.

  ULSTER KING OF ARMS.
  DR. LYONSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What are the conditions under which any new appointment to the office of Ulster King of Arms is to be made; and, whether he can assure the House that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abolish this ancient office?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the Question which he has put to me, as it may enable me to remove some misapprehension caused by the brief report which appeared in the newspapers of what occurred with reference to the appointment of Ulster King of Arms in Committee of Supply on Thursday last. After reference to the fact that Sir Bernard Burke holds his office under patent, and that an arrangement had been made in 1872 whereby he was to be paid by salary, instead of by fees, which had proved beneficial to the Exchequer, I stated that by a Treasury Minute passed in 1872 it was decided that on the next vacancy the office is not to be filled up without Treasury consent. The present arrangement being personal to the present holder of the office, the Treasury wished to reserve to themselves the power of reviewing its position and emoluments. As, I am glad to say, there is no present prospect of a vacancy, the question has not been under consideration, and as the fees and stamp duties appear to more than cover the charge of the office, I do not see, from a Treasury point of view, any reason to desire its abolition.

  LONDON CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT (RE-ORGANIZATION).
  SIR RICHARD GREEN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the reorganization of the Customs Department is yet complete, and have "the Customs Treasury Extra Clerks" been placed upon the establishment; if so, has any compensation been offered them in consideration of their
  1082
  past services and the anomalous position in which some of them were placed by the retrospective operation of the Treasury Order issued in 1856 with regard to age of admission to the Civil Service; and, if not, is the Government prepared to afford their favourable consideration to the matter?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The re-organization of the London Customs Establishment is now complete, and all the Treasury extra clerks who were recommended as thoroughly qualified have been placed upon the establishment as clerks of the lower division. The question of the salaries to be assigned to these clerks is still under the consideration of the Treasury; but the Board of Customs have, by their Report dated the 14th of April 1880, No. 144, recommended to their Lordships special initial rates of salary for all those who were employed before the dates of the Treasury Order of the 17th of April, 1856, on the ground of the exceptionally long service of these extra clerks. Certain of these were prejudiced by the Treasury Order in 1856, whereby they ceased to be eligible for appointment to the establishment, unless at the time of their first employment they were under 25 years of age, which limit was formerly 30 years of age. The Board's Report to the Treasury does not provide for any exceptional treatment of these extra clerks other than in common with the rest, on the ground of length of service, as they did not appear to have any direct claim; for although the limit of age was altered by the Order of 1856, it cannot be said that if that Order had not been issued they would have had any claim to be placed on the establishment.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House why the works passed at the extraordinary special sessions held at Ballinrobe, county Mayo, have not been sanctioned by the Board of Works; and, whether, in view of the distress prevalent in the barony of Kil-maine, he will take steps to have these works sanctioned so as to give employment to the labouring classes in that district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find, Sir, that at the extraordinary baronial pre-

  1083
  sentment sessions at Ballinrobe, works to the amount of £3,0 10 were passed, and that a portion of those works to the amount of £810 was approved of by the Board of Works. The Local Government Inspector reported against any works being sanctioned in the barony, as he considered the employment given by landed proprietors under the Landed Improvements Act would be quite ample. Having, however, ascertained that the landlords contemplated stopping the works in several instances, and beginning them again after the harvest, the Inspector recommended that the works approved of by the Board of Works should be proceeded with. The Government acceded to this proposition, and had conveyed an intimation to that effect to the Secretary of the Grand Jury.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AND AFFIRMATION BILL.
  MR. MASK STEWARTasked the hon. Member for Northampton, Whether it was his intention to proceed with the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmation Bill that evening?
  MR. LABOUCHERE,in reply, said, that when he had put down this Bill he was under the impression that the Committee upstairs would have finished its labours; but as this was not the case he would defer the introduction of the Bill until a later time.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—BOROUGH FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL—RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether there is any chance of our reaching the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill this evening; and, if not, if he will say on what day that Bill is likely to come on?
  MR. PLUNKET: At the same, I would wish to ask, When it is likely that the second reading of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With regard to the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill, if I can see that I can bring it on tomorrow before 11 o'clock I will ask the House to allow me to do so. If, however, as I am afraid will be the case, it will be impossible to bring it on to-morrow, I will put it down for this day week.
  1084
  As regards the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill, I had hoped to have bad it in the hands of Members to-morrow; but I find it impossible that it can be with them until Monday morning, and therefore I cannot do as I intended to have done—that is, to take the second reading to-morrow. I propose, therefore, to take it on Monday. There can be no doubt about the principle of the Bill. It must be passed as soon as possible, in order to meet the present circumstances of Ireland; and I trust I shall be allowed to take the second reading late in the evening, on the ground that the clauses can be amended, if desirable, in Committee.

  NAVY.—H.M.S. "ATALANTA."
  LORD HENRY LENNOXasked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question, of which he had given private Notice, Whether the Admiralty had received any confirmation of the rumour which had been copied from a Liverpool paper into a London paper of that clay, that a trading vessel bound from Demerarafor Queenstown, the Scotia Queen, had passed through many traces which led her captain to believe that they were the remains of the ill-fated Atalania?
  MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: Sir, the Admiralty have received no further information than that which appeared in the newspaper referred to. It appeared that the Scotia Queen was bound for Shields, and only called at Falmouth for orders. The Admiralty has, therefore, instructed the commanding officer of the Castor, lying at Shields, to go on board the Scotia Queen as soon as she arrives at Shields, and to obtain all the information he can from the master, and also to examine the log of the vessel.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was the intention of the Government to refer the Employers' Liability Bill to a Select Committee after it had passed the second reading; and, if so, whether the question of insurance would be included in the Order of Reference.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, the course which his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would take would be this. It was proposed to pro-

  1085
  ceed with the second reading that night, and by the second reading the Government hardly understood the House to pledge itself to more than this—that the present state of the law was not satis-factoiw, and that further protection against accidents was required in the case of workmen. That step having been taken, the Government would be desirous of availing themselves of whatever additional knowledge they might derive from the representations which might be made to them, or which they might gather from the debate, to be allowed to pass the Bill through Committee pro formâ, and to replace it on the Table of the House in the form which might be deemed best to secure its acceptance. It would then be open to his hon. Friend to raise the question that it should be referred to a Select Committee. At present he would express no opinion adverse to that proposal; but neither did he wish to be understood as committing himself to an approval of it. It would be open to his hon. Friend, and those with whom he acted, to consider the matter without prejudice, and to raise the question in the House, should Her Majesty's Government be compelled to differ from him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY BILL.
  (Mr. Dodon, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Brassey.)
  EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY BILL.

    [BILL 118.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    MR. DODSON,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, reminded the House that the present state of the law was that a man should be liable for injuries to another that resulted from his own personal negligence. An employer was also liable for injuries inflicted upon a third party, being a member of the public, by a man in his employment in the course of that employment. That law in regard to injury inflicted upon a third party was enunciated by the Judges in the time of Charles II. Further than that, however, the employer was not liable for injury inflicted by his employé on a third party, where that third party was a man also in his
    1086
    employment. This latter law was founded on two assumptions. One was that a man working with another had opportunities of knowing the qualifications and disposition of his fellow-workmen, and therefore of protecting himself against any negligence on his part. Another reason assigned was, that a workman accepted the risks naturally incident to the employment entered upon, among which must be taken to be the incompetence of his fellow-workmen. It was in 1837 tat the law first took that shape, in a case in which the two men concerned were equals in the employment of their master, or nearly so. Gradually since that time the defence of "common employment" to claimsagainst employers had been expounded in a series of judicial decisions, till it had come to be held that every man in the employment of a particular master was the fellow-workman of every other man in the same employment, no matter what their respective positions or their respective functions might be. The result of those decisions by the Judges was that the law had been brought to this state—that the workman had no claim at all against the master for compensation unless he could prove negligence on the part of the master himself. In the case of large industries where the master stood altogether too remote from the workmen, or where the master did not himself exercise the functions of an employer at all, the workman was left without anyone against whom, even in cases of negligence, he could enforce a claim, for compensation. The Scotch Judges, after the doctrine of common employment had been enunciated by the English Judges in 1837, appeared for some time to have refused to recognize it at all as a part of Scotch law, and when by the English decisions they were forced to adopt the doctrine of common employment, they still struggled to keep it within limits, for the Scotch Judges in repeated decisions, where a workman claimed compensation from his employers for injuries which he had suffered at the hands of another man in the same service, had regard in deciding the case to the equality or inequality of the two men in the same service, and did not recognize the superior servant as a fellow-workman for that purpose. Moreover, the Scotch Judges in their decisions limited the doctrine of common employ-

    1087
    ment by distinguishing between servants employed in different departments, and who, although they might be serving the same master, were yet really not working together in common. Gradually, by several appeals which were carried up from the Scotch Courts to the House of Lords, the decisions of the Scotch Judges were overruled. The House of Lords took the view of the law taken by the English Judges; but it was not till so recently as 1867 that by a final decision on appeal to the House of Lords the view of the Scotch Judges was overruled, and the Scotch law was held to be identical in regard to common employment with that large and developed view which had been in the meantime arrived at by the English Judges. That gradual development of the defence of common employment, and the full stage which it had at length reached, both in Scotland and England, had given rise to a considerable sense of wrong on the part of large classes of workmen. They complained that their claim for compensation was now absolutely reduced to cases in which they could prove personal negligence against the master. The law resulted in this anomaly—that if a man was working in a small undertaking in which, as it were, he was in contact with, and received orders from, his master, he, at all events, might have a person against whom he might establish a claim for compensation; but if he happened to be employed in a large undertaking, in the management of which the master personally took no part, he was absolutely without remedy, although lie might be acting under the orders of a man who was, to all intents and purposes, master. It was held, moreover, that men were fellow-workmen who had no community or vicinity of work, and who might be absolutely unknown to each other. In fact, as the law stood, common employment might be defined as simply service under the same master. It was not surprising, under these circumstances, that a cry for redress should have arisen on the part of a considerable number of workmen. Various suggestions for dealing with the law as between employer and employed were made. Some people said—"Sweep away all liability on the part of a master for injuries inflicted by men in his employ on any third person, and let him be responsible only for his own personal
    1088
    negligence." Others, on the contrary, said—"Sweep away the non-liability of the master for injury to a third party in all cases, although that third party may be in his own employment." Both these positions had the advantage of being simple, intelligible, and, in the eyes of their respective advocates, logical; but he believed most Members of that House would feel that, having regard to our present circumstances and habits, they were not practical, and would not in the present day be accepted as equitable. Anyone injured by a person in the employ of another would hardly be content to be told—"You have a remedy against the servant, who presumably cannot pay you compensation; but not against the master, who presumably can." Again, it would be felt that to make a master indiscriminately and unconditionally responsible for the act of anyone among, perhaps, 100 or even 1,000 workmen in his employ, whom he himself could not possibly know or control, would be to impose on him an unreasonable and, in some cases, an intolerable burden. The Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government took a viâ media between those two extreme proposals. It provided that a master should be held responsible, not only for his own personal negligence, but that he should be responsible to third parties in his employment, if they suffered injury through the negligence of persons to whom he deputed the exercise of his own powers as a master instead of carrying them out himself. Accordingly, if hon. Members would look at the Bill, they would find that the 1st clause made the master liable to have claims of compensation brought against him by a workman in his employment by reason of defective works, machinery, or plant. The master now was only liable for injury inflicted upon a workman by defective machinery if the workman could show, first of all, that there was a defect; and, secondly, that the master had personal knowledge of, and was negligent of, the defect. The master, also, escaped from compensation if he could show that the workman, by silence or otherwise, acquiesced in the defect. It was provided, however, by the Bill, that a workman should be entitled to claim compensation on proving the existence of a defect or preventable fault in the machinery, although that defect could not

    1089
    be brought home to the personal negligence of the master. Further, the Bill provided that a master should be liable for the negligence of any person in his service who had superintendence intrusted to him. This clause would be applicable to overseers to whom the master deputed his authority to see that the men did their work. Again, a master would be liable for injury arising from the negligence of a person in his service to whose orders and directions the workman injured was bound to conform. It was proposed, further, that a claim might be made for compensation against a master for the act or omission of any person done or made in obedience to the rules or bye-laws of the employer; in fact, for faulty bye-laws or rules. Moreover, a master would be liable to a claim for compensation for injury caused by an act or omission done or made in obedience to instructions given by any person to whom the authority of the master in that behalf was delegated. These were the five cases in which the 1st clause of the Bill extended the liabilities of masters. There was also this Proviso—
    "Provided always that a workman do not materially contribute by his own negligence to the cause of the injury."
    The principle of the Bill was the restriction of the defence of common employment, and the effect of the measure would be to bring back the law to what it was understood to be in England till 1837, when the case of "Priestly v. Fowler" was decided, and to bring it back in Scotland to the position in which it was understood to be so recently as 1867. This was the principle which, in a different degree, had been recommended by the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, and it was also recommended in no less than three special rival Reports submitted by Members of the Select Committee of that House on Employers' Liabilities in 1876–7. Her Majesty's Government, thinking this was a sound principle, examined the various Bills on the subject that had been submitted to this or the other House of Parliament. They found that the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) in 1879 was based on this principle, and that it substantially embodied their views on the subject. Accordingly they determined to submit that Bill to the House.
    1090
    Incidentally, the adoption of the Bill had this advantage—it was a measure whose provisions had already been before the House and the country, and it had gained in principle a very large amount of support. Notice had been given by an hon. Member of his intention to connect with this question the question of insurance. He wished to point out that the Bill dealt with accidents to a workman occasioned by the personal negligence of his master or the negligence of those to whom the master deputed his authority. Outside the limits of the Bill there remained the vast majority of accidents, such as those arising from a workman's own fault, and those which were caused to a workman by the fault of other workmen equal in rank to himself. Outside the Bill remained all accidents that were unavoidable or unaccountable, and such as were the act of God. He had yesterday been present with the Prime Minister at the reception of a deputation of railway and other workmen, and it had been stated by a railway man on that occasion that from a statement of the directors nine-tenths of the accidents on railways were due to the fault of the men themselves. If that were the case, the directors of railways need not feel any extraordinary alarm at the burden which was likely to be cast upon them under that Bill. It was the view of a considerable number of masters that they should be answerable only for accidents caused by their own negligence; but it was also the view of a considerable number that it was a sound principle that the master should also be liable for the neglect of those to whom he deputed his authority of master, instead of exercising it himself. With regard to the question of insurance, it seemed to him that it was wholly distinct from the subject-matter of the Bill, which simply raised the question whether the liability of a master for acts caused by his own negligence ought to be further extended. The Bill only proposed compensation for accidents of that kind. There remained for insurance all that larger field of accidents unaccounted for or unavoidable, and those arising from the neglect of workmen of equal rank towards each other. He had heard the objection made, and possibly it might be started again in the course of this discussion, that the knowledge which the workman

    1091
    would obtain that he could claim compensation for injury would render him more neglectful, and that appeared to him to be an imaginary objection. No doubt, there were many workmen who were "daredevil" people and careless of their own lives; but he did not think such men would be rendered more reckless and anxious to endanger their lives because of the knowledge that they could claim compensation. If that argument was sound, it would act equally if the principles of insurance were adopted. Then it might be said that the Bill would lead to a great amount of litigation. In anticipation of that objection he would venture to say this—that litigation might be a bad thing in itself; but surely if the existing law was considered to be unjust, it was no valid reason against providing a remedy that there might be additional litigation. But he was not aware that litigation was specially abundant 30 or 35 years ago in the Law Courts, before the law had been brought to its present state; because, in the vast majority of cases, if the workman had a legal claim to compensation, it would probably be arranged between himself and his master without recourse to the Law Courts at all. At all events, if a change of the law led to a certain amount of additional cases being brought into Court at first until decisions had been obtained under the new law, that would only be a passing multiplication of the cases, and it would not be a proper argument against any alteration of the law. Nor could he attach any importance to another objection that he anticipated—the argument, namely, that the Bill, if carried, would be a terror to the capitalist; that he would be afraid to enter on industrial enterprize; that capital would be withdrawn from industry; and that the working classes would thereby suffer. He would wish to point out that the great industries of this country grew up before the doctrine of common employment was laid down, and industry had not been checked by the then state of the law. In Scotland those industries grew up and continued to flourish, although the modern doctrine of common employment had not been applicable to Scotland in its full development until the last 13 years. It might, perhaps, be further alleged that the Bill would place an additional burden on British industry in its competition with foreign indus-
    1092
    tries. In answer to that argument, he might refer the House to the laws of France, Germany, and Italy. In these countries the master was liable for compensation to his work-people to at least the extent, if not to a greater extent, than was proposed by this Bill. He believed that the Belgian law also was similar in principle. Then, again, he might be told that that which this Bill proposed to effect in giving the workman a legal claim to compensation was now already done by every fair-minded and liberal employer. Well, he was glad to think that that was the case, and he was willing to believe that the large majority of the employers of this country were so liberal-minded as to deal justly with their workpeople if they had suffered an accident while in their employment. Then the effect of this Bill would be simply to give the workman a legal title to that which he now received only as a bounty at the hands of his employers. He would occupy no more of the time of the House than was necessary, and had endeavoured to compress his introduction of the Bill as far as possible. He hoped the House would be willing to affirm the principle involved in the Bill by reading it a second time, and when they got into Committee he should not object to agree to such Amendments as might be thought necessary to render the provisions of the measure more clear. Nor should he object to the introduction of modifications if, after due consideration, such should be considered advisable. Before sitting down he must repeat that it appeared to him that the question of insurance was one perfectly distinct from the principle raised in this Bill, and that to mix up the two questions would simply be to impede the progress of both and to lead to a considerable amount of confusion and difficulty in our legislation. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANthought the better course would be that they should not debate this Bill on its merits until they knew precisely the course which the Government proposed to pursue. There would probably be a general concurrence in the principle that some al-

    1093
    teration of the law was required, and as the second reading would pledge them no further than that, it would be premature to raise a debate on the details of the question. He therefore regretted that his right hon. Friend had entered into detail; and he very much regretted indeed that his right hon. Friend did not at present see his way to incorporate the principle of insurance in the Bill. The Bill was to be committed pro forma. That meant that the Government would introduce extensive alterations. Under these circumstances, they must reserve to themselves the right of taking the course they deemed best on becoming aware of the effect of the new proposals. He sincerely trusted that the Government would introduce some scheme of insurance into the Bill. He assured the Government, in the interest of all concerned, they would cover the whole ground, or nearly so, if they dealt boldly with the question of insurance. As the matter stood, he almost doubted whether his right hon. Friend understood the scope of the Bill he introduced, as he appeared not fully to apprehend the liability of employers in regard to accidents arising from negligence as the Jaw now stood. He should not go further into the matter now; but he earnestly said this—if the Bill covered a large space, it was a very dangerous Bill, and must be carefully considered; and if it covered, as his right hon. Friend believed, only a small space, it would be more to the credit of the Government and to the interest of all parties that the Bill should be made to cover the whole question of compensating men for all accidents of every kind whatever. Of course, it was well known that for one accident arising from the negligence of the employer or his agents, ten occurred that did not come within that category. Masters were prepared to come forward and meet the men; a large number of masters would be prepared to contribute pound for pound with the men in order to provide funds for the sufferers by accidents of every land. He thought the Government would throw away a golden opportunity if they did not seize the present moment to deal with the question before irritation ensued in consequence of the passing of this Bill. His right hon. Friend did not seem to attach much importance to that; but it was a point of very great importance.
    MR. KNOWLES: I do not think -we can improve an unjust law by extending it. The Bill of the Government is one of very serious importance to employers and workmen and the widows and orphans of workmen. The late Government saw very great difficulties in the way of extending the present law, and hence the question was referred to a Committee of the other House just before the Dissolution. I cannot see anything unreasonable in asking the Prime Minister to follow in the footsteps of the late Government on this question, in order to see how far it would be safe to extend the present law, or whether an alternative scheme of insurance would not cover the whole ground better. I cannot but look upon the proposal of the Government as one that would be dangerous not only to the interests of those engaged in large commercial undertakings, but to the workmen. I can view it as meaning nothing but confiscation of mineral property at all events. But this Bill would affect the farmers and agriculturists. For instance, if a man got hurt with a thrashing machine, or a hay cutter, or a mowing machine, or a plough, there would be ground for an action. So far as I understand the present law, there is a definite line drawn between what is common employment and what is not common employment. If that is so, there, no doubt, seems a great deal of reason in extending it. If you say a master abdicates his functions and leaves another man to manage his business, you say—"Why should not he be responsible for that man?" Well, there seems a great deal of justice in that; but you must remember that there is a danger of making an employer responsible for that for which he ought not to be responsible. As regards the litigation I have just spoken of, there is no doubt that it would be very serious if this Bill should become law. The right hon. Gentleman says—"Well, if it does create more litigation, why should a man be debarred from bringing an action against his master if he is in the right?" But it certainly would be widening the field a good deal for those purposes, and every accident would be grounds for a law suit, whether the man is in the right orwrong, and in all cases the master would be saddled with the cost of the defence. In fact, I was told by a lawyer the other day this. He said—"Certainly I should

    1095
    not say anything against the Bill, because it is the best thing that ever came for us lawyers." On another occasion, speaking to a gentleman -not in this House now, but who has his name on the back of one of these Bills, he said—"I do not know anything against the Bill, and I will not condemn it; but I know one thing—the Law Courts will not settle it for 30 years if it should pass." Well, that was the late Government's Bill, and I think this is a great deal? worse. What 'would be the consequence if a Railway Company should have half-a-dozen law suits going on with some of their workmen at one time? The result would be that the men not themselves engaged in the law suits, instead of minding their various occupations, would have their minds rivetted on what was going on, and would sympathize, to a great extent, with their comrades, and I am not so sure that that would conduce to the safety of the travelling public. I think it would be rather the reverse. At this point I will just read an extract as to what the engine drivers think about this matter. At a meeting held the other day of the members of the Engine Drivers' Insurance Association, they referred to the building of an orphanage for the purpose of providing educational training for the various grades of the children of those unfortunately killed on railways, and the engine driver who spoke said he was not aware whether the proposed orphanage was going to make any progress or not. He believed that a great deal depended on circumstances, and that the Compensation for Injuries Bill, which was, he thought, before Parliament, if carried, would affect it. So far from that measure, if passed, being of any good, he was of opinion that it would only create animosity between masters and servants, and in the great proportion of those cases where men recover compensation, the compensation would be eaten up by law expenses. Could they force a Railway Company to pay for accidents caused by the men themselves? I have just received a letter saying that the Bill would do more harm than good. I believe that as soon as this Bill is settled we are prepared to go on with the orphanage. I have every reason to believe that feelings like these exist in other places, and are getting more widely spread every day.
    1096
    At Chester this subject, I know, had a great deal to do with the elections, and I believe the promises were very profuse indeed as to what some gentlemen would do if they were only returned to Parliament. Some of them were bottled up with the engine men in the committee room, and great promises were made. I do not say this of the right hon. Gentleman specially. He and his opponents seemed, to vie with each other as to which could make the most promises. I know amongst the colliers in certain districts—and amongst others that know the importance of this Bill and know its significance—they would much rather be without it.
    MR. MACDONALD: Name, name!
    MR. KNOWLES: Well, I happen to know that it is so.
    MR. MACDONALD: Name!
    MR. KNOWLES: Well, now, I need not say that in the mining industries of this country 500,000 people are employed. One in every live are injured to some extent or another every year. As regards the railways, I know one extensive line, and quite as well managed as any other line in the Kingdom, and in one year out of 41,000 people employed there were 2,376 accidents. Those, I contend, if this Bill becomes law, would be all cases for either the County Court or the Superior Court. I grant that nine-tenths, or probably niueteen-twentieths, would get nothing. But look at the consequence of their getting nothing. What is to keep their wives and families? What I want to say, though I have not sufficient eloquence to express it to my own satisfaction, is this—that the cruelty to the working classes themselves by such a measure as this would be most deplorable. The masters would be arrayed against their workmen, they would have to subscribe large funds—or at least suggestions are now thrown out respecting such funds—the necessity for which will arise, if this Bill passes in the most modified form, in order to defend themselves. And having subscribed to that, they would certainly not willingly subscribe for those that would get no compensation after going to law. I have taken a great interest in provident societies, having been connected with one of these dangerous occupations all my life—that is, coal mining. I have always had some institution to provide for the widows and

    1097
    families of those killed. Probably those small institutions have not made quite such large provisions as I would like to see, but they have done something; and, as a rule, they have contributed to the wants of the injured people, and the people have been satisfied with it. We have institutions existing at the present time which are doing an enormous amount of good in this direction, to which the masters contribute something, but certainly it is not a large amount. The masters, in some instances, contribute 10 per cent; in some 15 per cent; but the men generally pay the great bulk of the money themselves. If it were referred to a Committee to consider this subject, the Committee might consider what should be the amount that should be contributed by the workmen and the employers as well; because if it were made general it would cost very little either to workmen or masters to make provision for all cases of accidents. Well, of these societies there is one in Northumberland and Durham with 68,000 members, with upwards of £45,000 a-year, and with an available balance of £76,000. There is another in Lancashire and Cheshire, which I have been most connected with, that has 31,000 odd members and a revenue of upwards of £25,000, besides £18,000 of available property. There are 115,000 miners now contributing to and belonging to these societies. Well, then, I need not say that almost all the railways in the Kingdom have something of the kind. They have means of providing for sickness and death in various ways; but, whatever their modes may be, if the Committee which I propose should hear the evidence, they would have the opportunity of judging what to recommend in this House of a tangible character, which would provide for all these people, however they may be killed—whether from their own negligence, whether they had contributed to it, or whether it was from pure accident. Any man knows that nine out of every ten would get nothing if this Bill were to pass; but in every case the master would have to pay expenses. Therefore, after he had had many cases he would be disposed to compromise the matter; but if this Bill passes, with whom could he compromise it? Not with the injured man himself; are there not others? Yes, and those others are the very people who have been trying to mislead
    1098
    the working classes to support this Bill. These people we should have to compromise with, putting the workpeople and the employers in their hands, who are not at all times desirable men to deal with. Those are the only people that would benefit by this Bill; while the employers and working classes would be injured to a considerable extent. I know it will be said that if we have a mode of insurance it would make the employers careless, because they would say—"Oh, the men are provided for; we shall have no litigation, and therefore we do not care about them." Will any sensible man believe such a statement as that, when we look to the enormous injury that is done, and the great destruction of property after a mine accident, a railway accident, or whatever the accident may be? If it should be a railway accident we know the public will naturally travel by the best conducted and safest line, so that it is to the interest of the Railway Company to have everything as safe as possible. As to accidents in coal mines, only the other day the Home Secretary was asked whether he would assist in getting the bodies out of the Abercarne Mine? He then received information that the owners had already spent £20,000 unsuccessfully, and it might cost £50,000 more to recover the remaining bodies, and they did not know but that it might cost £150,000 more. Well, when we come to look at the destruction of property to such an extent, it is likely that the owners of these mines will employ the best men and the best means to take care of their property. Then those men are themselves just as liable to accident as other workmen. They are men with families, and they are men affected by others, because they are of their own class, and whose position has been made in consequence of their superior knowledge, superior ability, steadiness, and carefulness. Not only so, but we have the superintendence of the Home Office. The Homo Office has the appointment of these men, the mine managers; they have to undergo an examination, and have a certificate from the Home Office before they can be employed. The owner selects from one of these the best man, and the most competent man he can get. As regards railways, we have also, in addition to the great destruction of property, the supervision of the Board of Trade. We

    1099
    have that coming down on us rather heavily, if all its conditions are not complied with, and every care is not taken. Further than that, we have what I should call those rather ironical but censorious questions asked in this House whenever an accident occurs. There is also the Press and the public, who do not censure the owners of property in the most gentle terms. Taking all this into consideration, I hope and trust this House will refer this Bill to a Committee, so that they may consider whether, under all the circumstances, it is advisable to extend the present law at all; and, if not, whether it would not be advisable to lay down some rule of friendly and mutual help to provide for all the accidents that occur. I hold that it is every employer's duty to provide for the safety of his workpeople under any circumstances. The safety of life and limb ought to be the first consideration with every employer and every man. I believe, generally, it is so; but I grant that there are employers who are careless in some trades. In that case, if it is thought proper, let the Government appoint more Inspectors. If they have not sufficient power to deal with these matters under the present law, give them more power; put any restriction you may choose or dare—and when I say dare, I do not speak of Gentlemen on the Government side of the House personally; but I mean any restriction that we dare—so as to enable us to compete with our neighbours on the Continent. I say, give them more power, appoint more Inspectors if you choose; let them stop works wherever they find the work is dangerous or being carried on in a dangerous manner, whether it is a railway, or a mine, or anything else. It is to all our interests that there should be no danger. There are thousands of employers, probably, who do not make any provision for their men in case of injury; but if we had a Committee, and that Committee recommended that provision should be made in every case, it would be compulsory on everybody, and everybody in case of accident would be provided for. Now, Sir, these accidents that I have attempted to point out which are so enormous, unfortunately, and would give rise to an enormous amount of legislation, might be obviated by some such insurance as I have suggested. But I
    1100
    contend, also, that the commercial interests of this country are of sufficient importance not to be sacrificed hastily; at all events, not at the instigation of a body of a few men who try to extract a promise at an election. I think, at all events, their interests ought to be weighed calmly and considerately by the legal Gentlemen of this House. I think the trading community have a right to appeal to the Government for protection in these matters; and I trust | that the Government will take it into their very serious consideration not to establish the principle of this Bill until they have further evidence as to how far the law ought to be extended, or whether some alternative scheme should not be adopted which would be better for the working classes as well as for the employers. No doubt, a good deal of pressure has been brought to bear. People that have been injured have gone about asking alms, and other people have gone about to ask contributions for the widows and children of men killed, and some have gone about probably on crutches. The public say—"Ought not something to be done for these poor people? Can't Parliament do something?" I say Parliament can do something, and ought to do something; but Parliament ought not to do something which would keep masters and men in a state of continual litigation, but make it compulsory that there should be mutual insurance for providing for these people without uncertain and costly litigation, which would not provide for more than one out of every twenty cases. In speaking of the justice of the present law, there are, no doubt, some cases of injustice; but would there not be more cases of injustice if you extend the principle of this Bill? Where we have one case now that miscarries for want of justice and discretion, we should have hundreds if you extend the law one iota. I do contend that, fine as the line that is now drawn may be, if you do break down the barrier. You cannot close the door again; you will have adopted the principles, and you can never stop till you get down to the bottom—to the lowest grade of men and women who have power to give an order. I speak under correction from the Attorney General; but that is my feeling, and I feel very strongly on the point. I contend, if the House passes this Bill, they must include something in it that would

    1101
    give mineowners power to relinquish their leases, or it will confiscate their property. I would take half the value for my property now that I would have taken a week ago, in consequence of what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I do expect a reasonable reply from the Prime Minister. The question is a reasonable one; and, seeing that the late Government had given a Committee of the other House to consider these matters, I did anticipate that the fair and reasonable request I am making would have been complied with without hesitation. Let them say, if they like—"Confirm the principle of this Bill and we will give you a Committee." I appeal to the Prime Minister to re-consider it for a moment. If he would turn over in his mind the real importance of this measure, I feel sure he would comply with my request for a Committee to see which is the most honest, safest, and best way of approaching the subject, and what would be the best manner of dealing with the matter for everybody. I believe this is the most revolutionary measure ever brought into this House against the trading community of the country. Now, taking this measure into consideration, there would be in the mining trade grounds for 100,000 actions a-year, and on the railways nearly as many; for, as I pointed out, there were upwards of 2,000 accidents on one railway alone. I contend that every accident would be, under this Bill, ground-work for litigation; and I am afraid that there is a certain class of people who, unless it is attempted to compromise claims through them, would put the machinery for actions into work. That being the case, is it desirable that we should injure our workpeople, their widows, and orphans, and not provide some means for a livelihood for them, rather than spend the money in Law Courts? However frivolous an action might be, the employer would have to defend it, and hence there would be an enormous cost. Could any commercial enterprize, or any place of business prosper, if the master and men were always to be at loggerheads or at litigation with one another? What would be the consequence to a mine owner, or to a Railway Compan,y, if they were to be in perpetual litigation with their own workmen? The right hon. Gentleman opposite might say the result would be
    1102
    nothing but ruin to both; but I should say that before the Bill goes to its last stage—if it is the determination of the Government to press it on to that, though I do trust it is not without referring it to the Committee—I certainly should ask that we have some clause added allowing us to abandon our leases, because the Bill is virtually confiscation. I beg to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on a system of general in. surance against such accidents as are proposed to be dealt with by the present Bill."
    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 consider and report on a system of general insurance against such accidents as are proposed to be dealt with by the present Bill,"—(Mr. Knowles,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. CRAIG: As a new Member, addressing this House for the first time, I must ask its indulgence while I make a few remarks with regard to this question now in course of consideration. Having had considerable experience in the management of mines, and being an employer of labour in connection with colleries, I shall confine my attention strictly to the probable effect which this proposed legislation will produce upon that industry. I think, Sir, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) relates to that which, in my opinion, will prove the best method of settling this question of compensation; and I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has not been able to see his way towards the introduction of a system of insurance into this measure. A compulsory system of insurance would give relief to all who are injured, and it would also compensate the legal representatives of all those who lose their lives during employment. It would do this without necessitating a law suit in order to establish a claim by proving culpable negligence on the part of super-intendents or managers. It being general, it would provide the funds necessary to meet all cases without inflicting ruin upon any individual employer at whose colliery, even under the best management, there might be a serious disaster.

    1103
    Now, I have never been able yet, in discussing this matter with those interested in the settlement of the question, to find any valid reason urged against insurance. The only objection I can remember being urged against it is this—that in the event of a mutual insurance the men might be required to pay their money for demands which would not be made, and inasmuch as they are migratory and move about from place to place, that money would remain in the hands of others, and would not be applied to their benefit. Well, no doubt, in questions of this nature, there are difficulties; but it very much depends upon the temper of those who are interested in the settlement of them whether those difficulties prove to be insuperable or not. Now, I think there would be one way of applying these surplus funds, which would, at least, lead to the mutual benefit of employed and employers. It has been stated that a great number of these accidents arise from the negligence and incompetence of managers. Well, Sir, there is, no doubt, a difficulty in getting competent managers, and my experience is that that difficulty has been enhanced since the passing of the Mines Regulation Act, which has narrowed the area from which you can draw managers of mines. There is another difficulty, and it is this—that in certain mining districts where a manager is required to manage mines you are frequently obliged to get him from another district where the conditions of mining are totally' different. For example, in North Staffordshire a mine is quite different from those in the county of Durham; and we are frequently obliged to get managers from that district who, however competent they may be in Durham, have to spend a considerable time before they are competent in Staffordshire. Now, it seems to me that in connection with insurance it would not be an improper or incompatible adjunct to have a Mining School or College in each district, supported out of the excess of the funds which might be contributed for that purpose, to be used in educating the sons of miners for managers; and then we should evolve, as it were, from the mining population, the future managers of collieries. They would then have an opportunity of acquiring the scientific knowledge which is now beyond their reach; because it is quite impossible that a miner should be able to send
    1104
    his son to serve an apprenticeship, and to pay £200 or £300 of fees necessary for that purpose. We should also have in a district managers who had a special knowledge of that district. Now, I think that, should there be an excess of funds, this would be a very proper way of applying them, and would certainly work to the benefit of both the employers and the employed. If we consider this proposal in connection with the complex and uncertain state of things at a colliery, I think it will appear that insurance offers a far better method of solving this great practical problem than is provided in the Bill now submitted for second reading. It should be kept strictly in view during this discussion that an official organization of a colliery-consists of a gradation of officials, from the general manager down to the ordinary workman. There is an agent, who appoints an engineer to take charge of all the surface and the machinery both above and below ground. This engineer appoints the enginemen and the several mechanical superintendents. Then underground there is an overman, who has charge of all the underground work. He appoints the firemen, who have charge of the ventilating arrangements, the examination of lamps, and so on; he also engages the superintendents, who have charge of the transit of the material from the working place to the pit bottom. It will, therefore, appear to the House quite obvions that in the event of an accident it would be a very nice question to decide whether any of those superintendents were to blame or not. It is one of those cases of divided responsibility; and it would be extremely difficult to place the saddle, as it were, upon the right horse. But one thing is certain, and it is this—that every accident that happens will be succeeded by a law suit, and there would be the strongest incentive on the part of the workmen to bring about a law suit in order to prove some of these superintendents guilty of culpable negligence, so that the owner might have to pay compensation. It would be equally certain that every employer would resist to the utmost such a claim, not only on account of the amount of money involved, but also to clear himself from the moral blame that would attach should his manager be proved guilty of culpable negligence. Hence, it seems to me that there would be far more wasted in law

    1105
    suits than would suffice to compensate for all cases arising from the causes enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. He classifies them in this way—that a small proportion is due to neglect or incompetency of management, and that another proportion, probably rather larger, is due to the negligence of the workmen, and that there are a certain number attributable to causes over which you have no control, or what may be designated purely accidental. Now, Sir, it seems to me that this—the principal defect of the Bill now before the House—will induce additional litigation, and that it will widen the differences now existing between the employers and the employed. But there is another point in which I think it deficient; and in calling attention to it I am bound to confess that I think that doctrine of common employment, as set forth by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-night, is inadmissible. I cannot myself see the compatibility or consistency of including the managers and superintendents in this liability, and, at the same time, excluding those injuries which arise from the neglect or wilfulness of the workmen. I am quite aware that in saying this I am arguing the case against my own interests as an employer; but I was not sent as a Member to this House to defend my own interests. There are many of my constituents who are working men and working colliers, and I should be unfaithful to the pledges I gave them if I do not state my views upon this point freely, candidly, and impartially. Now, it is said that this common employment ought at least to be upheld so far as it relates to workmen. I fail to see how that position can be upheld. The employer has the entire control over the engagement of the men, just as he has over the engagement of the superintendents; and, that being so, if he is determined to retain that power, he cannot escape from the responsibility attached to it. But it is said that the men know those risks, and that they take them into account when they engage to work down the mines, and that the wages paid for these mining operations are upon a high scale, and are accepted with the full knowledge of the risk which attends them. Well, Sir, this may be quite true as an abstract proposition—it is probably so in practice to a certain extent—but when reduced to its proper limits and expression, I do not think it
    1106
    would be applicable to the case in question. If men were engaged for the first time to take part in a dangerous employment, or on special occasions, no doubt they would take into account the risks incidental to it before they agreed to go into that employment; but we are dealing with a case where men are trained to the employment from youth to old age, when they become accustomed to the dangers, and entirely lose sight of them. I do not think there is any quality which bears more strongly the impress of Nature's hand than that which renders us indifferent to the dangers with which we are in daily contact, and with which we become familiar. But for this we could not continue such an employment as mining with either comfort or safety. I do not myself believe that any working collier, when he does engage to go down a pit, ever thinks of the danger at all. It is never present in his mind. Hence, Sir, I believe, from practical experience of many hundreds I have engaged, that the law of supply and demand governs wages in mining just as it does in all other employments, irrespective of the element of danger. As an employer, I must say that I very much prefer the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to the Bill which is now before the House. It is more consistent; and although I am aware that, by including in the liability those injuries arising from accidents occasioned by the negligence or wilfulness of the workmen, there would be more to pay for compensation by the employer, yet there would be less to pay in the aggregate, because owners or employers would never think of contesting any of the cases, and there would not be the cost of litigation. I think that by including both classes of injury it would have the effect of bringing about, by a social arrangement, the insurance that is sought and is so much desired by legislative action. For my own part, I should feel myself at liberty to enter into such an arrangement. I should feel that there would be no moral blame attached to me; but, in view of the provisions of that Bill, I could not do so, because if we arrange in all cases in consideration of those specified in that Bill, it would mean a practical confession that all accidents were brought about by the negligence of the managers; but if the whole were included, then I think it

    1107
    quite possible that employers, upon economical grounds, would seek insurance against all accidents. Now, Sir, with regard to the cost of such an arrangement, it has been stated to-night that it would be something frightful—that the trade could not support it. Well, I admit that it would be a serious case if all those claims came upon individual owners. I do not know who, being acquainted with the dangers incidental to mining, would like to remain in a trade if he had to meet individually the great liabilities that might arise any day from an accident. It would, in fact, bring ruin upon him; and although for 20 years I have been so fortunate as never to have had an explosion in mines under my management, yet I would seek at once to escape from such a liability. But when it is spread over the whole trade it is not so very serious a matter. I have made a calculation from statistics of past years of the deaths and injuries occurring in 1877, which year was an exceptionally heavy one—the year of the Blantyre and Pemberton accidents—and I find that, taking all the deaths and all the non-fatal accidents, the whole of the compensation would amount to something like a halfpenny per ton upon all minerals drawn. I do not think that the coal trade at that rate would be seriously affected; but three farthings at the most would cover all, and would give ample compensation, and hence the insurance would bring about a state of things which would not inflict any hardship upon the trade generally, and would not bring about conflicts between employers and employed, nor would it be all lost, because the bereaved and the injured have now to be maintained out of the poor rates and charitable contributions, and therefore it would not be an entire loss, but rather in the way of a substitution of one method of support for another. I believe that if this Bill be passed giving the power of mutual insurance and settling questions once for all, we should gain from another direction; we should make the work more popular, and generally could get a better class of workmen. I do not know that there is anything more distressing in this country than to contemplate the working man going to his work in the morning not certain that he will return, and knowing that, in the event of an accident, poverty and pauperism are staring his family in the lace. Nothing can be more discourag-
    1108
    ing or more distressing; whereas, if he had the assurance that his wife and family would, under such circumstances, be provided for, and would not become paupers, I think it would have a tendency to induce in his mind that honourable ambition to raise himself and them a step higher in the social scale, by his industry, and thereby he would become not only a better workman, but a better citizen. I think that will be brought about by this principle of insurance; and I shall exceedingly regret if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way, before the discussion closes, to import it into that measure. I think it will give general satisfaction to the workmen of the country that the Government have brought this Bill in so soon after their accession to power; but I think they will not be satisfied with this Bill as it stands, and I believe, from all that I can learn, that it will be extremely unsatisfactory to the employers. I sincerely trust, therefore, that this insurance will be admissible, and that this great question will be settled once for all.
    MR. MACLIVER,speaking on behalf of the railway servants, denied that there was no demand for legislation on the part of that body. He knew from, experience that they were anxious that the Bill should become law. They had already done all that could be done by mutual insurance. For example, the Railway Servants' Society, numbering 14,000 members, paid annually about £10,000 for the benefit of its subscribers, besides establishing an orphanage at Derby, and an orphan fund, last year, at Leeds. The simple question was whether the working men of the country were, or were not, to receive compensation for an admitted grievance. That question was agitated very largely during the late Elections; and he was told, on crediblo authority, that no fewer than 400 Members of the House had pledged themselves to support a measure of that kind. He should be very unwilling, as an employer of skilled labour, to press anything on employers which would be against their interest or detrimental to the prosperity of the national industries; but he thought the time had come when they ought to do something in this matter. Among the working classes with whom he had come into contact, there was a strong feeling that the question should no longer be left unsettled. They were grateful to the Government

    1109
    for having brought in the Bill; and he thought that not only working men but employers owed the Government a debt of gratitude for having introduced a measure which, in his judgment, ought to receive the full confidence and support of the House.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was certain the desire in the breasts of all of them was to do justice to masters and men; but he must declare that the Bill as it stood contained principles which involved a monstrous liability on the part of the masters. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Dodson) used the word "preventible;" but that was not in the clause. It had been held that a Railway Company was not responsible for a latent defect in a tire; but he supposed that under the Bill a master would be responsible for the consequences of any small defect in the metal of which his machinery was made, and not the person who made the machine. He called that a monstrous liability. The manufacturer of the machinery ought to be liable. The case of a person suffering from the negligence of a fellow-workman was unprovided for, but it would be provided for by a system of insurance; and, in the interest of the working men, he wanted every case to be provided for in which a poor man suffered in life or limb. He hoped the Government would give attention to the views of practical men on both sides of the House. He had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), and he concurred with him that mining' operations would be impossible under this Bill. He trusted the Government would re-consider the subject and follow suggestions which had been made, and which, if carried out, would prove more beneficial to the men and more just to the masters than the present Bill.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that several speakers, including the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) and Glamorgan (Mr. Vivian), had declared that they spoke in the interest of working men; but he (Mr. Macdonald) wanted to know what body of working men had ever deputed them to recommend to the House a system of insurance? This newborn zeal for insurance was to his mind of a very questionable character; and he denied that these hon. Members had been deputed by the working men to
    1110
    speak on their behalf, either individually or collectively, for a system of insurance would be simply a system of licence to destroy life. The Bill was supported by those who were in favour of it, in the hope that the doctrine of common employment would be removed, and that the working men of England would be placed on an equality with the remainder of the public; and, so far as it went in that direction, it had their hearty approval. Most hon. Members had received a document this morning, issued by the Mining Association of Great Britain, which was circulated for the purpose of prejudicing their minds against further legislation in the direction of compensation. That document referred to 1,200 cases of loss of life through accidents in mines. Well, it was his opinion that out of those 1,200 cases, 1,100 were the consequences of preventible causes. Juries and Inspectors of mine3 had condemned the entire system upon which the working of these mines was carried on, and had expressed the opinion that the disasters occurred through disregard of what science taught. For instance, with regard to the demand for a second shaft in coal mines, which demand was met with statements that if it were complied with the mining interest would be ruined, yet the demand was complied with after the Hartley Colliery accident, and since then there had not been a life lost owing to the want of a second shaft. He maintained that the doctrine of insurance would have the effect of enabling employers to continue their reckless conduct; and if it were adopted, it would be to call on districts where no accidents occurred to pay for accidents which, with ordinary care and the avoidance of parsimonious management, ought never to have occurred. If the Government persisted with this Bill, as he hoped they would, they would do more for the benefit of the working classes than they would by any system of insurance. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Dodson) had spoken somewhat haltingly of the law of other countries on the subject; but the principle of the measure would not go so far as the present law of France, where, since 1844, no case of compensation had been tried, because it was then decided that the plea of being a fellow-workman was not a bar to compensation. Nor

    1111
    were there such cases in Italy, for the same reason. The law of Belgium on the subject was the Code Napoléon. In America the law differed in accordance with the views which predominated in the different States; but in New York a Bill had been brought in to make the law there similar to the law of France, while hon. Members might see in the columns of The Daily Telegraph that the discussion of a measure such as that which he himself proposed was, at the present moment, engaging public attention in Germany. Members of the German Parliament had assured him that though the principle of assurance was established in Germany it was unsatisfactory, and regarded as an encouragement to the destruction of life. Taking all these facts into consideration, the alarm which seemed to be felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in connection with the question seemed to him to be wholly unfounded. The cry as to insurance did not, he might add, come from the working men, in proof of which he could state that although the system of mutual assurance had existed for 16 years among the pitmen of Northumberland and Durham, and they had thereby tested all the benefits which accrued from that system, yet they were the most clamant in the whole country for an alteration of the law. They felt satisfied that a real protection was only to be obtained when the owners were compelled to pay in purse for the negligence of those they employed; it was an attempt to deceive them; and he trusted the Government, if they did not deem it consistent with their duty to go the length which he desired, would, at all events, abide by the very letter of their measure, for it would, he believed, do more to put an end to the utter recklessness with regard to human life which prevailed than any system of insurance which could be devised.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he rose to give a cordial support to the second reading of the Bill of the Government, because he was fully convinced that the time had arrived when such an alteration of the law as that which was proposed should be made. He supported it the more readily, because of the assurance which had been given by the Prime Minister that in assenting to the second reading the House would be
    1112
    committing itself, not to details, but simply to the principle of the measure. He saw, however, some difficulty in the way of making the Bill as perspicuous as it ought to be, owing to the loose phraseology of the clauses; and he feared, if it stood as at present, it might give rise to litigation to a large extent. For instance, in the second line of the 1st clause appeared a word upon which the whole question as to the extent of the increased liabilities proposed to be created would turn. He meant the word "workman." That was a word unknown to the law. He gathered from the Bill, and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that the measure was designed to extend the liability only of those who were the owners of large undertakings, of large corporations, such as railways. But it had been held that a man's gardener was a menial, or servant; and supposing such a man were injured by the action of a fellow-servant, would a Judge be justified in saying such a gardener did not come within the meaning of the Act as a "workman?" Would the employer in that case be entitled to have claimed from him compensation for the negligent acts of a servant? He did not think that was the intention of the Government. But he would go further, and observe that he found by the measure that it was proposed that claims for compensation should be brought in the County Court, and not "elsewhere." He desired to ask, and he believed they might expect to be told, why the words "or elsewhere" were introduced. From evidence he had at his command, he did not believe that the County Courts enjoyed, to a peculiar extent, the confidence of the classes of the community to which this Act would chiefly refer; and he thought the subject should have the right of choosing the Court in which he should bring any action which he might be entitled to bring under the proposed Act of Parliament. The President of the Local Government Board drew a broad distinction between insurances against the calamities which it was sought to provide against by the Bill, and insurance against what he called accidents. Were accidents the only things against which they insured? Did they not insure against life and against marine risk? If the liability

    1113
    were transferred to the shoulders of the employers, would it not at once be provided against by them by such an annual provision as would partake of the nature of insurance? He had had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the working classes in matters of this kind, and he intended to support the second reading of the Bill, because he knew that among those classes there was no desire to have the recommendation of Select Committees on such affairs. He was under the impression that the measure need not be referred to a Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), because he believed the obligation to insure was one which had better be founded upon interest, and he could not see how it could be enforced by legislation. He was anxious that the question should be settled at the earliest possible moment. He could not agree to the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), as it would create a great and new liability of uncertain amount, which would have its effect upon capital, and which would certainly have its effect upon wages. They had better be cautious how they proceeded. They had better proceed by-steps, ascertaining as they went along the effect of legislation in this direction. For this reason, it was his intention to support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, that it would be a waste of the time of the House to enter upon an examination of the Bill until it was before them in the shape in which the Government intended finally to submit it for acceptance. He did not hesitate to say that, in his opinion, the law with regard to common employment was somewhat overstrained, and that a reform of it in the interest of workmen was only a measure of justice. He objected, however, to having any very wide alterations in it made, and he thought most of the alarm to which the Bill had given rise was due to the unsatisfactory way in which the main clause was worded. But after the assurance which had been given by the Prime Minister in the early part of the evening, it would, he thought, be well to pass the second reading with as little delay as possible. He would, however, suggest the appointment of a Special Committee to see how far they
    1114
    could engraft the principle of insurance upon the Bill.
    SIR ANDREW FAIRBAIRNtrusted that, as a large employer of labour in the North of England, he might be allowed to say a word on this important measure. He confessed that the words of the Bill regarding machinery to some extent puzzled him. He desired to know what was to be the position of employers of labour with regard to workmen who met with accidents in attending to machinery, which was certainly dangerous in itself, but without which the business and industries of the country could not be carried on? There was considerable risk to men so engaged, and yet they were but doing their duty in attending to such work. He wished to know whether, in such cases, the employer of labour would be responsible, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would afford him an explanation on the point? Although an employer of labour, he intended most cordially to support the second reading of the Bill, because he thought they ought to do all they could in order to meet the fair demands of the working classes. He trusted, however, that those defects which had been pointed out would be considered, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would allow those who had a knowledge of labour to consult with him on the subject.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he was of opinion that if the amount of compensation were made equivalent to two years' wages the equity of the question would be fully met. He fully approved of the provision relating to County Courts, and would suggest that the compensation should be paid to workmen in weekly instalments instead of a lump sum, which they would be likely to spend foolishly. He wished, however, to ask whether the Government meant that employers were to be allowed to contract themselves out of the Act? He was inclined to support the principles of the Bill; but believing that the details ought to be discussed by a Select Committee, he should, if the Amendment were pressed, give his vote in its support.
    MR. C. JAMESdrew a distinction between those who worked above ground and those who worked in mines. The former had the opportunity of estimating

    1115
    the extent and nature of the risk which they ran; while the latter from the moment they arrived at the pit's mouth were unable to see or ascertain where danger awaited them. They had to "stand, as it were, the racket of the negligence of 300 or 400 men;" and that such men should have no claim for compensation in the event of injury was most unfair. He trusted the Government would stand by the measure they had introduced, and be firm in their resolve that these poor people should have right done to them. In that view he should have great pleasure in supporting the second reading.
    MR. EWARTsaid, he should not like the discussion to close without a word being heard from some Member from Ireland. Ireland was not a very largo manufacturing country; at the same time, this was a subject in which they took a considerable interest. It was his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he believed that the law as it at present stood was not fair, and inflicted great injustice upon working men. But he was of opinion that the House should proceed very gradually in altering the law, because the trade of the country would not bear to be harassed in the way that it would be if the Bill were to pass in its present shape. There was one class in the country who would rejoice very much if so many openings as the measure now afforded were given to litigation—he meant the Legal Profession, Even at the present time he knew that manufacturers had been harassed and coerced to make too many allowances by the very threatening of legal proceedings under the law as it at present stood. He trusted, however, that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, in order that a really safe measure might eventually be passed that would not endanger the trade of the country, which was so much threatened at present by foreign competition.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the question under discussion was one closely affecting the class whom he represented, and with whom he had been long connected. He congratulated the Government on the courage they had displayed in grappling with this difficult question. It was a question which the late Government had under their consideration for a considerable time; but they, he supposed, like wise men, preferred to leave
    1116
    a subject which had so many and varied and difficult aspects to be dealt with by their successors. But while he thought the Government had been bold and courageous in going so far as from the employers' point of view they would be taken to have gone, he, and those with whom he was associated, regarded the Bill before the House as a weak contribution towards the settlement of this difficult question. There could be no reasonable settlement of this question which did not absolutely abolish the law of common employment. That was the only logical solution of the problem. At its best the Government Bill treated the workman's just demands in the spirit of compromise. These demands amounted to no more than that they should be placed on precisely the same footing with regard to the law of compensation as that in which all other classes of society were placed when injured through the negligence of an employer or the carelessness of an employer's servants. There had been much exaggeration of language in that House with regard to the proposals of working men. They did not wish to hold employers responsible for accidents over which neither they nor their managers could have any control; they would never dream of holding an employer liable in the building and engineering trade for such casualties as the loss of fingers or of a hand, injuries to the eyes, ruptures of blood vessels through lifting heavy weights. No caution or foresight on the part of an employer could prevent such accidents as these, and he would be the last to vote for any Bill which would make employers liable for such accidents. Accidents, also, were constantly occurring which were mainly brought about by the negligence of the sufferers themselves. For that class of accident the Government were not asked to provide. Out of 13 accidents, by reason of which the secretary of the trade society to which he belonged paid £700 from an accident fund, in 1875, only four would have justified an action against the employer if the law of common employment were abolished. In 1876, out of 18 accidents, costing the fund £1,050, only three could have been the subject of actions in the desired state of the law; in 1877 actions might have been raised in four only out of 24 cases of accident. Another secretary

    1117
    with a large and unexampled experience in these matters informed him that in 1879 his society granted £100 for accidents in each of 27 cases, and only three of these accidents could have justified an action against the employer, even if the "common employment" doctrine were abolished. This average would apply to the accidents provided for out of the funds of the other large trade societies of this country. As a matter of fact, there was really very little difference of opinion upon the subject between the large and respectable employers of labour and the workmen. Employers of the highest skilled labour who sought experienced managers, whose machinery was of the most approved description, and whoso plant was sound, would find accidents of the kind for which workmen wished to have the power of claiming compensation almost impossible. But there was a class of employers who systematically purchased plant left off by large firms, and used it, with unskilled labour, to compete in price with larger and more respectable firms. It was against these firms that the workman asked protection; and he contended that unless the doctrine of "common employment" was abolished, the workman had no security against a careless, an avaricious, or a designing employer. As a stonemason, it had been his business to work on platforms raised by men called "scaffolders." He did not employ these men, and had no control over them; yet, had he lost life or limb through their unskilfulness or negligence, it would have been no consolation to his wife and children, who would be left unprotected in case of his death through the carelessness of those who had the management of the works, to be told that he and the "scaffolders" were in common employment, and that the law debarred them from the right of compensation. This should show that the theory of "common employment" was absolutely absurd, and could only result in the grossest injustice. There was only one sound foundation in which to act in legislating on such a matter, and that was the foundation of truth and justice. With regard to the question of insurance, the proposal was no doubt, very good in theory; but the moment they applied it in a practical form it would be found utterly to fail and break down. He had been compelled, in the course of his life,
    1118
    to pay a considerable sum out of his weekly wages to meet the occasions of accident. The system was, no doubt, very good for those who suffered by such accidents; but the moment he left the employment all his careful savings for years were gone to the winds, irretrievably and uselessly. That was the difficulty they had to meet. If workmen could reckon upon as constant employment as the members of the Civil Service, the case would be altogether different. The party with whom he acted viewed this insurance proposal with reasonable and well-grounded suspicion. He asked whether it was possible to pass a law giving an employer power to stop a certain sum every week out of the wages of his workmen, when the Legislature had condemned the truck system? It was impossible, and it could not be for a moment entertained. But there was another aspect of this question. If it were not illegal, was it not immoral, to establish a scheme by which those who employed workmen were to be held irresponsible for accidents occasioned by their own rapacity, their carelessness, or neglect? Why not make a proposal in the interests of the general travelling public who ride on railways? He had travelled last night on the Great Western Railway, and he took the precaution to insure his life. But if he happened to be seriously injured through the neglect of the Railway Company, the fact of his having the forethought to provide for his family in the event of accident would not prevent him from proceeding in a Court of Common Law against the Bail way Company for compensation. Unless a general law on the subject of insurance was proposed, he would repudiate any attempt to place the working man in a different position to the general public by casting upon him an obligation to contribute from his weekly wages any sum intended to cover the risk of a fatal or serious accident. It was absurd to suppose that any man would wantonly sacrifice a limb for the mere purpose of securing a certain sum of money. They might as well suppose that a railway passenger would voluntarily place his foot under the wheels of a railway train in order to obtain the £500 for which he had insured himself against accident. He also repudiated the notion that working men under an altered state of the law would be less

    1119
    careful of the interests of their employers, for at present they were more so than many persons would give them credit for. As an example of that fact, he might point to the engine-driver of an express train, whom he witnessed at his post of danger last night, and who only thought of his employer's interests whilst discharging his perilous duties. It was, therefore, absurd to say that workmen would be careless of their own immediate interests if they knew that their families would receive compensation for injuries done to themselves. Further than that, it was not reasonable, because it was not likely that a man would seek mutilation simply to reap a pecuniary gain. They appealed, then, to the Government to be firm on the subject of the second reading of the Bill, for the existing condition of the law had been denounced by the highest legal authorities. He should not, of course, assume the authority or right to warn the House; but he appealed to them as a Representative of those who were ardently and immediately interested in this question, assuring them that an honest endeavour to give a real measure of justice would meet with the unanimous support of the people through-out the country, who were deeply anxious for the settlement of this vexed question, which had been in the past the cause of so much agitation.
    SIR JOHN HOLKERsaid, he had listened with considerable attention and admiration to the speech just delivered, and confessed that he would have been better pleased with it if hon. Members had not been threatened in it with the wrath of their constituencies. They ought, he contended, to be allowed to deal with this question without having before their eyes the terror of the poll. He dared say his constituency might entertain a strong opinion upon this subject; but he was not terrified in consequence. He believed his were a very respectable and sensible body of constituents, and he did not suppose that they would refuse to send him again to Parliament because he happened to entertain an opinion which did not agree with their own on this subject. During the course of the last Parliament it had been his duty to consider the question before the House, and he quite agreed with the last speaker (Mr. Broadhurst) that the Government had displayed very great
    1120
    courage in speedily bringing the matter before Parliament; for if ever there was a difficult question to grapple with, it was the question of the liability of employers for the negligence of their servants. But the Government were a bold and venturous Government, and they had brought this question before the country at the very earliest moment available for the purpose. He should, however, have expected that the Bill presented to the House and the country would be a carefully, scientifically, and artistically prepared Bill, one which expressed the views of the Government in clear and distinct language, leaving as little room as possible for doubt, controversy, and the intervention of the Courts of Justice. But the Bill was not of that character. It was a short Bill, and that was its only merit. He entertained views on the subject before the House which differed from some that had been expressed, and which were, he feared, not of a popular character. Before touching the general question, he wished to draw attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that the Bill would be committed pro formâ, and that it was only a sort of skeleton which might have to be filled up as the debate went on. This statement placed the House in a difficult position, because they could not easily understand the provisions of a measure which was not placed before them in the shape it was ultimately to assume. Was the Bill, he asked, one which the House could fairly accept, supposing it to be granted that the law required improvement? The first matter to which he would draw the attention of the House was the provision which the Bill contained in respect to personal injuries caused by defective machinery or stock. If he rightly understood the law as it was at present, if a master knew of defects in his machinery or plant, or had reason to believe it was defective, or had not exercised ordinary care, he would be liable for injury to his workmen by accident. That was the law, and, so far as he knew, no one complained of it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, however, who, he assumed, was responsible for the Bill, would make masters guarantee, so far as their servants were concerned, their plant and

    1121
    machinery and the safe condition of their works. Now, was that reasonable? Why should a master be held responsible for some defect in the construction of works in the erection of which a skilled architect and skilled builders had been employed? Had he been culpable in any shape or way? Let them take the case of a master who had purchased a steam-engine from a most eminent firm, and let them suppose a breakdown in consequence of some defect in the engine. Ought the master to be liable in such case? Then, there was the question of latent defects. According to the law at present no one was liable for latent defects in machinery—that was, defects which could not be discovered. It had been held that a railway company was not liable for an accident to passengers caused by the breaking of an axle which contained a flaw. But what would be the case if the Bill were to pass? The driver, the stoker, the guard, or any other railway servant who might happen to be injured, would be entitled to compensation from the company. Therefore, this state of things would exist. That the company's servants would be entitled to compensation, while the passengers who had paid their money to be carried would not be entitled to one farthing. Was this really intended by the framers of the Bill? If it was, it was a monstrous proposition to lay before the House; if it was not intended, what could be said of the accuracy and care displayed by Government in the preparation of the Bill? He came next to the paragraph in the Bill which said that the master would be liable for the negligence of any person in his employ who had superintendence intrusted to him. Now, was that a sufficiently explicit and definite definition? What was meant by a person who had superintendence intrusted to him? There was hardly one industry in which there were not numbers of persons who had superintendence intrusted to them. In a mine the lamp-man had such superintendence. In a cotton factory, where there was a self-acting mule at work, there was also a man having such superintendence. Was it intended by the Bill that, if an accident were to happen which could be traced either to the lamp-man in a mine or to him who had care of a self-acting mule, the master should be responsible? Was
    1122
    such a casualty to be regarded as throwing liability on the master? If it was, he should like to see it defined more clearly; otherwise, the result must be that in every case a question would arise which would have to be settled by the Courts of Law. There was another phrase in the Bill to which he objected. It said—
    "Or by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose orders or directions the workman was hound to conform."
    There, again, a wide door was open for difficulty and doubt, for it was scarcely possible to point out the workman to whose orders somebody was not obliged to conform, and a master might thus be made responsible almost without limit. But he should like to know what was to be the consequence of the negligence of the person for whose conduct the master was made to suffer? A great many illustrations had been drawn, in the course of the discussion, from coal mines, and he did not see why he should not go into them as well as other hon. Members. Suppose a man had command over a boy who was a drawer in a coal mine, and suppose he was guilty of a piece of negligence in respect of an order in consequence of which a great number of persons were injured, were they all to have a claim for compensation against the owner, or only the drawer? He should be astonished if any Court of Justice should decide, in such a case, that the master would be liable to anybody who happened to have been injured, and he must protest against one of the greatest and most difficult questions which had ever engaged the attention of the House being dealt with in so slipshod a fashion in a Bill by which it was proposed to settle it. Again, in the next paragraph, a master was made liable for the action of any person or any act done or omitted to be done in obedience to rules and bye-laws laid down for the conduct of his business. He should, however, scarcely have thought that it required a Government Bill to settle that point, for, according to the existing law, if an employer laid down a rule, and that rule was followed, and the consequence was that injury was inflicted on somebody, he would be liable. But the Bill went on to say that he was to be liable if a rule were acted upon, or omitted to be acted

    1123
    upon, in obedience to instructions given by any person delegated with the authority of the employer. Now, who could tell, he would ask, who was a delegate or not? Was a signalman a delegated authority to give a signal to a driver of a train to come on or not, as the case might be? That was a sort of question which would have to be relegated to Westminster Hall; and it was not desirable, he contended, to throw on the masters of this country, not only an overwhelming liability, but the costs of litigation in addition. He spoke in no adverse spirit of the Bill; but he had expected a well-drawn Bill from the Government, a Bill which he might possibly have disapproved of on principle, but which would have contained some sort of principle, and which would not be open to the objections that could be brought against this Bill. He could quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who had a mind which could grasp all these difficulties with the greatest possible expedition, should say that the Bill was, perhaps, not quite satisfactory, and that he would listen to the suggestions which were thrown out, and then re-commit the Bill pro formâ. In making these observations, he must not be understood to contend that the law was on a satisfactory footing; but he could not wholly agree with those who were of opinion that a perfect remedy for its defects could be provided by doing away with the doctrine of common employment, and he thought hon. Members should look at both sides of the case. The law as it stood, shortly put, was that a master was liable for the negligent acts of his servants to the outside public to any extent, but that he was not answerable to a servant in his employment, if the injury inflicted on that servant had been inflicted by the negligence of a fellow-servant. Now, he did not see himself the reasonableness of making a master liable for the acts of his servants. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): It is the law.] He knew it was the law; but he did not entertain the view of some that the law was the perfection of wisdom, and he did not see the justice of making the master responsible for the negligent acts of all his servants. He, of course, admitted that if a master chose to depute the management of his business
    1124
    to somebody else, that he would be liable not only to the outside public, but to his own servants for the acts of the man whom he had put in his place. In dealing with a corporation, which was simply an abstraction, the person who managed the business of that corporation must be liable in the same way as if the master were an individual; and a railway company, necessarily conducting its business through an agent, must be liable for his acts both to the outside public and to their servants. But he could not see the justice of going further. Let him suppose the case of a man who had a coachman, a man of good character who had served him well and without any accident for years, and that one fine day after having had, perhaps, a bad bilious attack, he drove on the wrong side of the road and knocked down an eminent physician, or it might be a lawyer, his employer might be called upon to pay thousands of pounds in the shape of damages. Where, he would ask, was the justice in that? Had the master been guilty of any neglect? He had taken care to secure the services of a good and steady coachman. But if, instead of a person who might be supposed as keeping a carriage to belong to the opulent classes, he took the case of a greengrocer or a costermonger who got a man to drive his cart and that man drove over somebody, where, he would ask, was the justice of making either the greengrocer or the costermonger responsible for that act—perhaps, the last farthing he possessed? Of course, if an employer did not take care to have proper servants he would, without the aid of the present Bill, be liable for the damage done by them. He quite admitted that the subject was one with which it was difficult to deal in a logical fashion—it could not be dealt with logically unless the country was prepared for a very extensive alteration of the law. There were only two ways of dealing logically with the question—either to abolish that rule as to common employment and give servants the same rights as the outside public, or to "level down," so to speak, and free masters from all liability except for the acts of servants in authority both in respect to their own servants and the outside public. To meet the case of railway companies, it might be enacted that all carriers of

    1125
    passengers should insure passengers as they did goods. But both those courses would involve a change in the law for which he believed the country was not prepared. It only remained, therefore, to deal with the question in an illogical manner. Now, the idea of the late Government was to make employers responsible for the acts of servants in authority so far as their own workpeople was concerned. The present Government went much further. Without diminishing in any respect the responsibility of masters to the outside public, they proposed to render them responsible to their servants for all accidents that happened through the negligence of fellow-servants, or nearly all. It had been said that comparatively few accidents happened through the negligence of servants. That, however, he did not believe. As far as his experience went, nearly all the accidents in certain branches of industry happened through the negligence of servants. He protested against the Bill because it was badly drawn, and because it involved a bad principle. That principle was to render masters liable in a way that would inflict enormous injury upon the industries of the country, and it appeared to him that those industries were sufficiently handicapped already. At the same time, he did not see that any good would result from opposing the second reading; because it was possible that after the Bill had been re-committed it would come out in a very different garb, and one which although they might not like more, yet they might dislike less. The principles of the measure as it stood, however, was one against which he felt bound to protest.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there seemed to be a general consent to the second reading of the Bill, and therefore he should confine his observations to the criticisms that had been passed upon it. The criticisms of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken (Sir John Holker) were easy to reply to. He understood the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) to say that there was a general feeling that some alteration must take place in the law, and that that was so was proved by the prominence the question had occupied in the General Election, and by the fact that the late Government had
    1126
    attempted to deal with it. The Government, in complying with that demand, had thought it right to introduce a Bill embodying principles which had already been considered by the country. It could not, therefore, be said that their measure was hastily prepared, or that no sufficient time was allowed for people to acquaint themselves with its provisions. It had been said in some quarters that there was to be a new Bill under the form of a re-committed Bill; but that was not the intention of the Government. The principles of the Bill would be found in any Bill which the Government intended to pass; and though there would be an alteration in one or two details, there would be no alteration in the principles of the measure. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir John Holker), who had energetically and almost eloquently at that Table denounced the injustice of the measure, had hastily left the House—a circumstance which he (the Attorney General) regretted, for he did not know that he had ever seen his hon. and learned Friend so demonstrative in his energy as he was in denouncing a principle which, if he had read the Bill with the ordinary care with which he trusted his hon. and learned Friend read every matter intrusted to his advocacy, he would have seen did not exist in it at all. Both his hon. and learned Friends commenced their criticisms on the earliest lines of the proposed clause, which ran thus-—
    "Where after the passing of this Act personal injury is caused to a workman by reason of the defective works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of his employer."
    What was the mistake which both his hon. and learned Friends made? They assumed, because they had not carefully considered the effect of the remainder of the sentence, that an employer was to be liable for every injury resulting to a workman from such causes, and that a passenger would not be able to claim compensation where a workman would. This was not what was contained in the Bill, and he complained that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston had given the weight of his authority to such a criticism without having taken the trouble to consider the whole clause, which was to the effect that where personal injury was caused

    1127
    to a workman by reason of the defective works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of his employer, the workman should have the same right of compensation and the same remedies against his employer as if he had not been a workman in the service of such employer. Thus, the master was only to be liable if he had been guilty of negligence or want of care in ascertaining the fitness of the plant. Indeed, the whole object of the Bill, as far as it related to defective plant and machinery, was to put a workman in exactly the same position as a member of the general public. Another objection raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston was that the principle of the Bill was not logical, and that if the Government had been desirous to act properly they ought to have accepted the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), to have got rid of the defence of common employment in its entirety, and to have made employers of labour liable for the negligence of any servant whereby injury was inflicted on a fellow-servant. Such a criticism might well lie in the mouth of those who had always agreed with the hon. Member for Stafford; but his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston was almost the last person in that House who ought to apply such a criticism to this measure. His hon. and learned Friend himself introduced a Bill in this House on the subject in 1879, and the late Government also introduced another Bill in the House of Lords by the hand of the late Lord Chancellor in the first Session of the present year. The present Government was denounced for proposing that an employer of labour) should be liable for the negligence of employés who had superintendence over other workmen; but, in point of fact, the Bills brought forward by the late Government in 1879 and 1880 contained exactly the same principle, only in different language. While this measure spoke of a person with delegated powers of superintendence, the late Government called him "a servant in authority." Further, the Bills of the late Government were confined to the owners of railways, mines, and other manufactories or works; whereas the operation of the present measure would extend to all kinds of employment,
    1128
    whether it was agricultural or manufacturing, or of whatever kind. He therefore claimed of those who sat by the side of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston at least absence of criticism on the principle attempted to be established by this Bill, for although it had not been framed on the exact lines of the measure of the late Government it embodied exactly the same principle, and the only difference that existed was one of phraseology, coupled with an extension of the operation of this Bill to employers generally. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) he must express a hope that it would not be pressed, because if it were carried this Bill could not be read a second time, as it was in effect to substitute the appointment of a Select Committee of Inquiry for the Bill; for if the former were carried, the latter must be defeated. The measure criticized by the hon. Member for Wigan was not that which was now under the consideration of the House. The Bill criticized by the hon. Member was that of the hon. Member for Stafford. The Government, however, did not make the employer liable for the negligence of servants in general, but only for the negligence of superintendents and persons in authority. They had, therefore, taken a middle course in making masters responsible only for the acts of those to whom authority had been delegated. Now, it had been said in the course of the debate that the Bill ought not to be passed in its present form because a substitute had been found for its provisions in a common insurance fund, and that the Bill was consequently unnecessary. It had also been suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Special Committee in order that the subject of insurance might be dealt with. He did not think that course practicable. If the difficulty of insurance was to be so dealt with that all accidents should be compensated, it was useless to talk of the admission of that principle into the Bill. In fact, the suggestion was only now made for the purpose of defeating the Bill) Could it be supposed that they could introduce into this Bill a provision to compel both master and workman to contribute towards an assurance fund? Such a course would at once render the Bill useless and unnecessary, and those

    1129
    who saw any practical mode of making compulsory insurance take the place of the Bill had better introduce a Bill of their own with that object. He quite admitted that the principle was one which had actuated a great many of the employers of labour in this country; but he did not understand how this benevolent action was to be converted into legislative action. Nor had he ever heard it mentioned as a subject capable of practical legislation till the Bill had been forced by the constituencies upon the attention of Parliament. If the Bill passed there was no reason to apprehend that it would stay the effect of that benevolent principle, and if it brought it into still greater operation so much the better; but he could not regard it as a possible basis of legislation. As things were now the workmen contributed from their wages to insure themselves against accidents of all kinds, no matter how caused, and their funds were under their own control. At present, these workmen were independent; but if a scheme of compulsory insurance came into operation they would lose their independence, and a system that had hitherto worked well would be changed for one that presented endless practical difficulties. What was the Bill to do with such workmen as did not choose to subscribe to an assurance fund? Let them not attempt any course which might disturb the right feeling existing between employer and workman. Let the masters and men both understand that they had the power of contracting themselves out of this Bill if they liked to contribute voluntarily to a compensation fund. He confessed that the more he considered the question of insurance, the more he was struck both by its benevolence and by its practical defects. An appeal had been made to the Prime Minister to send the Bill to a Select Committee on the ground that the question of insurance might alone be considered. [Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS: No, no !] If not, he did not know why any Select Committee should be appointed. The provisions of the Bill were fully discussed by the Committee of 1877; and it would be only a waste of time to go a second time before a Select Committee, when they could only repeat the evidence they had already heard so lately as 1877, for he was not aware that any fresh evidence would now be forthcoming. The
    1130
    Government could not consent to appoint another Committee, unless it was suggested that new knowledge on the subject would be thereby gained. Some time had elapsed since Lord Shand had pointed to insurance as the remedy for objectionable or excessive liability for accidents, and his suggestions, which were not listened to then, were accepted by the workmen for the first time now that they had the Bill before them. The view which the Government presented was that the principle of insurance was an independent thing, and must not be introduced into a measure of this kind. It would be of the greatest possible benefit, but it could not be treated as a matter of legislation in substitution of the present measure. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had complained that the word "workman" used in the Bill was unknown in legal phraseology. The word, however, was not unknown; it was used so recently as the Employers and Workmen Bill, 1875, and by the Government; and "workman" was a term known to the law and constantly acted upon. He did not believe that the Bill would have the effect predicted for it by hon. Members opposite. There would be no greater liability thrown upon farmers by its provisions in the event of one workman being injured by being pushed by another upon a threshing machine; and in the case of a man being injured by turning machines in the course of using them, he had only to say that the law remained as it was. The position which the Government occupied was that it was admitted that an alteration of the law was necessary. They had to deal with the law as it existed; and even if that law was unjust—which he did not admit—what they had to do was to render it other than unequal in its operation. If an unjust law, it must be made equal in its injustice. He did not admit, however, that it was unjust. It had been impossible to adopt the suggestion of abolishing common employment. A master and workman had one common interest, and too great a liability should not be cast upon one or the other. That would injure the workman as much as the employer of labour. It had therefore been thought well that a middle course should be pursued, and the Government had introduced this Bill believing that it

    1131
    would be for the general benefit. No one wished that liability should be cast on the employer so as to depreciate property; and if it should be thought right to consider whether in certain industries a limit should be placed on the extent of liability, there was a precedent for such consideration in those measures which had controlled the liability of shipowners. He thought he had heard an offer made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that in consequence of this Bill his property would be so depreciated that he would willingly accept one-half of what it was worth last week. An hon. Member near him, on hearing that remark, made this observation—"Done with you." He (the Attorney General) did not think the hon. Member for Wigan would make the offer under circumstances where it was likely to be accepted. The principle of the Bill was one to which the Government intended to adhere until it should be successfully embodied in legislation.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL,in supporting the suggestion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said: I venture to detain the House for a few minutes upon a subject which has been brought forward by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of this Bill as though it would have no effect except upon the large trades, the mining trades, the railways, and the shipowners; and the right hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the Bill to-night spoke of it has having, perhaps, "some terror to the great capitalists." I venture to think, Sir, that the persons who will be most affected by this Bill are the tenant farmers and small farmers. Let us look, Sir, at the two points in which the Bill seems to touch them. In its 1st clause—
    "Where personal injury is caused to a workman by reason of defective works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of the employer,"
    —the employer is liable. We all know that a farmer, though trying to have all useful machinery and plant for the work of his farm can by no means always insure that it shall be of the highest quality or in the highest condition; and, if not, then he becomes liable to an action at law, for, depend upon it, the person injured will always be able to get plenty of so-called scientific witnesses to say how much better the poor farmer's machinery
    1132
    might have been. Again, the farmer is liable for injury to a workman when the injury is caused by the negligence of a person "to whose order the person injured is bound to conform," or "who has superintendence intrusted to him." Take a waggoner, going out with a lad of some 14 or 15 years old. The man has probably begged his master to let the boy go with him, and has only been allowed to take him on his saying how safe the lad will be with him. The man gives some silly order, tells the lad to take off the chain without stopping the waggon, or does something of that sort, and the poor lad is injured or killed, and the master is tobeliable. Nor is that the worst of it. By the very fact of making the master liable in law you prevent his coming out liberally at once as he would have done, the waggoner declares he has been guilty of no negligence, and the master defends the action. The boy's friends persuade the waggoner to admit that he has been guilty of some negligence, as "the master ought to pay;" and in Court he says, "Well, perhaps he oughtn't to have done it," and the jury giving a verdict accordingly, the poor farmer finds himself let in for a couple of hundred pounds damages, and as much more in costs. I think, Sir, we may complain that the House has not been dealt with quite fairly by Government in this matter. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question at the beginning of the evening, said he should wait to see what suggestions were offered in debate, and the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill said he should be guided by the Amendments that were hereafter put on the Paper. I think that when a great revolution is proposed in the law, such as that which is contemplated by this Bill, we ought to have the whole matter clearly before us. Remember that this Bill goes far beyond the recommendations of the Committee in 1877. The Chairman, Mr. Lowe, who went the furthest, only proposed in his draft Report that—
    "15. The Committee, therefore, recommend that the funds of every industrial undertaking shall he liable to compensate any person employed in such undertaking- for any injury he may receive by reason of the negligence of any person exercising authority mediately or immediately derived from the owners of such undertaking, with this qualification that the liability to indemnify shall not extend to persons who, though exercising authority, are bonâ-fide employed in actual labour as distinguished from superintendence."

    1133
    And in the Report which was adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, (Sir Henry Jackson), and accepted by the Committee, the recommendation was—
    "12. Your Committee are of opinion that in cases such as these, that is, where the actual employers cannot personally discharge the duties of masters, or where they deliberately abdicate their functions and delegate them to agents, the acts or defaults of the agents who thus discharge the duties and fulfil the functions of masters, should be considered as the personal acts or defaults of the principals or employers, and should impose the same liability on such principals and employers as they would have been subject to had they been acting personally in the conduct of their business, notwithstanding that such agents are technically in the employment of the principals. The fact of such a delegation of authority would have to be established in each case, but this would not be a matter of difficulty."
    I think, Sir, before we go further in this measure, which affects so seriously the largest trades in this country, we should have before us the measure on which the Government intends to rely.
    MR. LAINGsaid, that having had long experience in the directorate of large Railway Companies, he took a special interest in the working of institutions which were for the benefit of railway servants. He fully and frankly accepted the principle upon which the Bill was founded. He held that it was indefensible that the widows of railway guards, engine-drivers, and stokers should have no claim to compensation in cases which entitled passengers to compensation. In his opinion, assurance ought not to be set up as a substitute for the principle contained in the Bill. These assurance associations, however, had been of the greatest possible value, and there was, so far as he could see, no reason why the system of assurances should not go on concurrently with the legal remedies which the Bill provided. He did not think they should interfere with the right of workmen in the employment, say, of railway companies, to continue associations and insurances founded on mutual goodwill. On the contrary, he should deprecate any legislative compulsion of this kind, If a man found himself better off under an assurance company, he would support any proposal to allow him to contract himself out of the Act. If the company he represented were to abandon this voluntary system, and fall back upon the hard-and-fast letter of the law, he was quite sure they
    1134
    would gain pecuniarily. The voluntary contributions of his company were about £11,000 a-year, and he was quite sure that that sum would far more than cover the cost of any compensation they would likely have to pay under the Act. In accepting the principle of the Bill he must not, of course, be understood as binding himself to its details, and he hoped steps would be taken to provide, as far as possible, against the increase of litigation. They could not establish a right without giving a legal remedy, and the great danger they had to experience was from the existence of a class of attorneys who made it their business to get hold of claims for compensation and work them to their own advantage rather than that of their clients. They ought, therefore, to do all they possibly could in the Bill to limit and prevent litigation, and it would be a great step in that direction if they adopted the principle foreshadowed by the Attorney General, of having a fixed amount—say, some multiple of the weekly wages—to be awarded in certain cases. The Railway Inspectors of the Board of Trade, when an accident occurred, might also be empowered to decide whether the case came within the Act or whether the Railway Company were to blame, and expensive litigation might in that way be to a great extent avoided. As to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, looking at it from a railway point of view, he saw no necessity for taking that course, and he should be perfectly willing to leave the Amendment of the Bill in the hands of the Government and the House, believing that they would give fair consideration to any practical suggestions. He, therefore, gave his cordial support to the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, the question was whether the important subject of insurance should be considered by the Committee. No one could deny that of the whole question, representing 100 parts, not more than five parts would be met by the legislation proposed by the hon. Member for Chester, leaving 95 parts still to be dealt with. The Prime Minister had urged that the Bill should be read a second time pro formâ and recommitted; but the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had repudiated what was understood to be the pledge of the Prime Minister, and it was ob-

    1135
    vious from the speech of the Attorney General that the Government had determined to carry this Bill, having made up their minds that the question of insurance—the 95 per cent of the whole—was beneath their notice. He thought the Government had lost a great opportunity. With their great majority, they seemed to say they would simply make it a question of difficulty between employer and employed. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes, yes;" and he hoped the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) would go to a division in order to ascertain whether the Government were in favour of dealing with 95 parts, or only five parts of this question. Hon. Members who came from the hustings reeking with pledges to the working men might be disposed to follow the Prime Minister's lead in this matter; but, as a Liberal of 44 years' standing, he warned the Government that they were missing a great opportunity of dealing with the relations of the employers and employed in a broad and statesmanlike manner.
    MR. STOKERsaid, he was afraid it was the intention of the Government, as indicated by the Attorney General, to endeavour to include the agricultural classes within the provisions of their Bill, This would be one more apple of discord thrown in by the Government. He did not know what deity it was that made the Government a present of all these discords.
    MR. BURTcongratulated the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) on the excellent speech he bad delivered, and also the Government on the course which the Attorney General had stated they intended to take in regard to the Bill. There had been a considerable advance on the subject since it was last discussed in that House, for it was now conceded on all hands that the present law was indefensible. He trusted the Government would not consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Such a course would only tend to delay, and reveal—what the evidence taken by the last Committee abundantly showed—that the views of masters and men on the question at issue were diametrically opposed. Great apprehensions were expressed concerning the effect of the Bill if it were passed in its present form; but the same phenomenon had been witnessed in connection with the Mines Regulation Act, and the mine-owners now
    1136
    in the House, he was happy to see, were not less well-clothed or less well-fed than they were before that much-abused Act was passed through the House. He had witnessed with great satisfaction the unanimity and enthusiasm with which the opponents of the Bill advocated insurance. Now, insurance was a very good thing, and he had always advocated it himself; but it could not be accepted by the working classes as a substitute for that Bill. He trusted the Government would not listen to the overtures made to it on that point, but that they would deal with the great question of compensation on the lines they had laid down.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, that after the assertion of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) that not a single hon. Member in the course of this debate had uttered a word in favour of the existing law, he would confess that, after many years' study of this subject, he was old-fashioned enough to remain convinced that the existing law was really based upon reason and justice, and that the demand for this legislation was not well founded. Perhaps hon. Members might say to him, "Why, if you think so, do you not divide the House on the second reading of this Bill?" He would have taken that course if he thought that by doing so he could hope to maintain the existing law; for, notwithstanding the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth about the vain fears of the operation of the Mines Regulation Act of 1873, he believed the passing of this Bill would, for a time at all events, produce an economical revolution, of which the House did not appreciate the effect or the danger. But it was useless to "kick against the pricks." This agitation was one of the first results of our democratic Constitution. It was impossible not to recognize that there existed out-of-doors a feeling so deep and so passionate that the present law was unjust, that he feared it was hopeless to bear up against it; and he thought the best course to be taken by those who shared his views would be, not to struggle hopelessly against a stream which would overwhelm them, but to endeavour to find some sort of compromise, or come to some terms which might result in a settlement of this vexed question. The question was one of great difficulty; and he felt by no

    1137
    means sure that the Government had made up their own minds how to deal with it. Among the measures which proposed to settle the law, the only one which dealt with the question on a logical footing was that of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald); yet no one, except that hon. Gentleman himself, had ventured to go the whole length of the argument, or to advocate the abolition of the defence of "common employment." The House did not know to what extent the Government measure would be persisted in. It was said that the change to be introduced into the Bill would be merely matters of definition and alterations in detail; but the whole question might turn out to be one of definition and detail. The Report of the Select Committee of 1877, for which he was primarily responsible, yielding as much to sentiment as influenced by logic, recommended that there should be an alteration of the law by making an employer responsible for the acts of him who was designated vice-master. This proposal was to meet the case of railways and other large corporations, where, from the nature of the case, there could be no personal negligence. If the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman proposed only to go so far as that, he, for one, should recognize it as a compliance with the recommendations of his own Report, and would not have a word to say against it. On the other hand, all were agreed that to go the length proposed by the hon. Member for Stafford would be in the highest degree impolitic, if not dangerous. The Government claimed to have found a middle course, but, in truth, they had gone a long way in the direction desired by the hon. Member for Stafford; and in the Bill which they had presented there was a total absence of definition and of precision; and he defied anyone to say in respect of what officers, servants, or persons the new liability would attach. If the Bill was to be a Bill of definitions, and if the definitions were satisfactory, the discussion might cease. But the House was called upon to debate a Bill which was not final, and, as it were, to treat this important subject rather as a debating society than as a Legislature, simply, as he feared, because the Government had received deputations of persons whose interests were affected, and wanted to satisfy them and to show the country that it was in earnest. He felt that the
    1138
    Government were in a somewhat difficult position and were pledged to legislate; but they should legislate deliberately, and submit nothing but matured proposals. In this case he did not know what was meant by the principle of the Bill, or how far this principle depended upon details. The Bill would materially affect both capital and labour, and it ought to have been submitted by the Government in something like a definite form. He had never been able to see how insurance could be made compulsory. If it were voluntary, legislation would not be needed; but if it were to be made compulsory, it could only be worked by the creation of a great State Fund, to which employers and workmen alike would be compelled to contribute; and if this would not become a mere tax, what else would it be? He could understand the objection on the workmen's part to a compulsory insurance tax, as they might remember the effect attributed to the facilities for marine insurance, and be not unreasonably alarmed lest, like those facilities, its operation might produce recklessness and danger. Nor did he see how it was fairly possible to adjust the incidence of insurance among men shifting from one employment to another. With every desire to treat this, not as a Party question, but as a social question, he could not see his way to vote with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles). But there was another aspect of the matter which the Government seemed entirely to have overlooked. There were two Reports submitted to the Committee of 1877. One was that drawn by himself, which was adopted by a large majority, and the other was that of the then Mr. Lowe. This proposed that every person exercising a delegated authority, however far down in the scale, should be, as regarded the workman, in the position of the master for the purpose of attaching liability to the employer; but, then, Mr. Lowe shrunk from unlimited liability, and proposed to restrict liability to what he called "the funds of the enterprize;" and that was the recommendation of the Eeport. Before the Bill was forced on the employers of the country it ought to be considered whether, consistent with its principle, some limitation of this kind could not be introduced. There was no lack of precedents. Under the Merchant Shipping Act there was a

    1139
    limit to the liability imposed upon the shipowner. Then, there was the case of the workmen's trains, which the late Lord Derby forced the railway companies to run. The parties came to terms, and it was arranged that in case any accident happened to a workman travelling by one of these trains the compensation under Lord Campbell's Act was to be limited to £100. These were precedents which he hoped the Government would carefully consider. They were imposing on capital new obligations, and were subjecting employers to new liabilities. This was exciting great alarm and some soreness. The alteration in the law was all in favour of one class, and all against the other; and, as this change was the spontaneous work of Parliament, it was surely open to Parliament to impose conditions upon the benefits conferred, and to consider whether there should not be some statutory restrictions on this new statutory liability which would remove a great deal of the apprehension which was entertained out-of-doors. He hoped this might be made an opportunity for a real settlement of the question. If the hon. Member for Stafford and those who worked with him would accept the Government Bill as a real settlement, great good would be done; but if they choose to regard it as a mere instalment towards that wider measure of which they sometimes heard, the House would have but a sorry prospect before it. If the Government, by considering both sides, could assist in the settlement of the question, not as a class question or a Party question, but so as to put an end to the question, they would deserve well of the House and country; but to secure that result, he could assure them that they would fail unless, in good faith, liberally, and reasonably, they attended to the suggestions made in a conscientious desire to prevent the measure from becoming a serious national disaster.
    MR. COURTNEYwished to say a few words on this occasion. He approached the question with entire impartiality. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) said he was satisfied with the present law; but that was not quite consistent with the very able Report of which he was the author in 1877. It was not consistent, either, with his recognition of the fact that the present law was not tenable. Now, it appeared to him that the present
    1140
    law could not be defended in its entirety. According to the present law, if a servant, through his negligence, caused' some injury to a stranger, that stranger had an absolute and unqualified remedy against the servant's employer. If, however, the injury happened to a fellow-servant, there was no remedy whatever. There was an inconsistency in that position. On the one hand, it was said with great force that the remedy which the stranger had was not defensible in the way of justice; on the other hand, it was said with equal force that as long as the remedy existed in the case of the stranger, you could not draw a distinction that would hold water and say that the fellow-servant should have no remedy whatever. Consequently, they had been drawn to this conclusion, that the present law was, as regarded servants, a bad and unjust law. If the law itself was inherently bad, there was much to be said in favour of exceptions from it, however arrived at. The result, so far as the exceptions were concerned, might be very good. He ventured to submit that the present liability of the employer for injury done by servants to strangers was a bad liability, in so far as it was an unlimited liability; but it was a good liability, in so far as it might be reduced to a limited form. If the person who suffered the injury had no remedy except against the servant who inflicted it, he was liable to a very great injustice. If the employer was liable in an unlimited degree for the fault of the servant, against which he could not guard and in respect of which he had taken the greatest pains by making the best possible selection of a servant, he also was subject to great injustice. It was by making the employer liable only in a limited degree that the true solution of the question was to be found. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry had referred to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which he believed were most pertinent. They put the captain in a position which exposed servants to the greatest possible risk, but they were very careful to limit the liability of the owner of the ship. They reduced the liability of the employer in the case of injury to strangers to a certain amount per ton of the value of the ship with which the captain was intrusted. Let them apply that principle in the case of fellow-servants, and they

    1141
    would find a solution of the question. With regard to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that it would inexpedient to do so. The labours of a Select Committee would be fruitless, and would afford a remarkable example of an endeavour to extend the sphere of Government beyond its proper limits. How, he might ask, could a Committee discover the precise quota of insurance money to be contributed by the employer and the employed respectively? The suggestion of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), and his offer of a pound for a pound was a rough-and-ready idea, which, whether good or bad, could not be regarded as a principle of legislation. The real question for the House to consider, if the solution of the problem was to be found, was not in the denial of liability on the part of the employer, but in the limitation of his responsibility, and how that limitation was to be practically applied. The Government had thrown the Bill upon the House, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, "simply as a reduction of the present plea of common employment." If that was all that was intended, a great deal more would be wanted in the way of machinery and provisions before the project could be accepted by the House. Now, were the Government going to re-cast the Bill after committing it pro formâ, or did they mean to allow the question to be worked out by a Select Committee? For his own part, he did not think that the question could be worked out by a Committee; the most satisfactory function of Committees being to choose between two different principles of legislation, and not to work out the practical details of a measure. He hoped, then, that the Government, having acquired some knowledge of the difficulties of the question, would put before the House, not merely another sketch, but a mature project, embodying the proper principle of legislation on the subject, the chief of which principles he held to be the limitation of the liability of the employer measured by the amount of the trust reposed in the person to whom authority was delegated.
    MR. BIRLEYremarked, that one of the great dangers of this Bill was the
    1142
    risk of its promoting, if not much litigation, at least much heart-burning, between employers and the employed. It should, he thought, be the object of the Government so to shape their Bill as to remove, as far as possible, any such danger. He believed that the principle of mutual assurance had been so successfully carried out in very large works that it might be made applicable to the nation at large, and he was not certain that if it were made an alternative proposition it would not be readily accepted by masters and workmen. The Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) would be an entire disturbance of the settlement proposed by the measure before the House. While he should support the second reading of the Bill he was not satisfied with the way in which it was drawn, believing that it was susceptible of much improvement.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he was very largely interested in that question, and he fully admitted that some alteration was required in the law as between employer and employed. He had impressed on the Home Secretary of the late Government the desirability of passing a Bill while they were in power, because he knew it was a very difficult task, and that no Government could perform it satisfactorily to all parties. He felt that after they had a Liberal Government they should be rather wild, and that they would not be likely to pass as good a measure as the late Government would have done. However, he was not there to complain, only of one thing, and that was that he held the Bill in his hand, and he could not for the life of him understand it. He thought that if anybody could understand it he could, because he had had so much to do with workmen. He had formerly superintended works for the construction of railways himself, and he did it so well that, although the works were very troublesome and very risky, and there was a great number of accidents during their execution, yet no workman or any of his relations ever brought an action against him. He had at all times, if he found that he was wrong, liberally compensated the persons who were injured. But he feared that if this Bill, as he read it, had been passed 20 years ago, he should have had to defend scores and scores of

    1143
    actions. He would have been liable for every ganger. His foreman, an excellent man, told him that if this Bill passed, as he had understood it, he would be liable for the action of 700 or 800 men in his works who more or less gave orders and instructions. Let the line be drawn, and let the employers know where their liability began and ended. All the large proprietors of coal mines and other works looked on him with great suspicion, because he always took the part of the men. As far as he was individually concerned he was not at all alarmed at that measure, because it would have the effect of keeping capital out of the colleries, and, of course, the large coal proprietors would get on. The competition was so great that they could not get a price; but let them stop the introduction of capital—and timid people would not invest their capital—and the case would be different. In the end the people would have to pay for all that, whatever it might be. He had promised some of the coal proprietors that he would oppose the Bill, unless the Government undertook that it should be extensively amended. But he was now relieved, because the Government said that it was to be amended in Committee. As the Government had promised to re-model the Bill and make it understandable, he would say no more. MB. GORST said, he thought the House had reason to complain, not because they had not had a long and interesting discussion, but because they had not got a Bill before them; and he rose not for the purpose of maintaining the discussion, but in order to press for the adjournment of the debate. His reason was that, before passing the second reading of the Bill, he thought it was desirable that the House of Commons should know what Bill it was that they were asked to read a second time. This Bill belonged to the class of what were vulgarly called dummy Bills, and the House was asked to read a blank Bill which the Government was hereafter at its leisure to fill up. Now, he must say that the conduct of the Government in regard to this question had been, to say the very least of it, extremely strange. It was not even a new question—it was not a question as novel as flogging in the Army, or as the recall of Sir Bartle Frere. It was a question four or five years old. There had been two Select
    1144
    Committees upon it, and it was a question which every person cognizant of the Business of that House had known for two or three years past, and as to which the Members of the present Government must have formed very strong opinions some years ago. It formed a political cry at the last Elections, and the partisans of the Party now in Office were returned in a great many constituencies to propose some measure to settle this question. Well, what ought they to do? He should have thought that they would have met together in the Cabinet to consider the grievance, and would have devised a particular measure by which this grievance would have been redressed and have submitted that measure to the House of Commons. But, instead of doing that, they appeared to have looked about, and to have picked up the first stray Bill they could get. They got hold of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), and he supposed that, having got hold of the hon. Member for Hastings and put him into the Government, they thought they had a right to his Bill also. It was brought in with the names of a number of the Members of the Government on its back, and the House of Commons was asked to discuss that Bill. Well, what happened that evening? The first thing that happened was that the Prime Minister said it was not at all the measure which the Government would eventually propose. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg your pardon, I did not say so.] One of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters was so convinced that that was the meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman said that, being pledged to his co-owners to oppose the Bill, he now felt himself released from that liability. He hoped he was not mistaken in the language which he had put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. They certainly understood him that he should like to have the debate continued something after the fashion of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions on the general question, and that from that debate he would pick up a few stray hints as to what was the particular line of legislation that might be most expedient and would go down best with the country; and, having in this way picked up a few stray hints, he would have the Bill entirely re-modelled

    1145
    and committed pro forma. The right hon. Gentleman would then make up his mind whether that Bill, so re-drawn, should be referred to a Select Committee. He asked the House of Commons was that the proper way in which Her Majesty's Government were to treat a great question of this nature? He asked the House of Commons whether it was fit that they should now pass the second reading of a Bill which they had never seen—a Bill which everyone told them would greatly affect the social interests of this country? He, for his part, was not prepared to take so rash and headlong a course. He was inclined on this question to have a little of that caution which Her Majesty's Government exhibited on other burning questions; and, therefore, he should move that the debate be adjourned, chiefly with the object that before the House was called upon to discuss this question the Government might meet in Cabinet, and might be able to lay before the House some definite and decisive proposal on which the House might express an opinion.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had asked the House whether they thought this was the right way of dealing with this question? He (Mr. Dodson) would ask him and the House of Commons whether this was a practical way of dealing with the question before them? What was it the hon. Gentleman complained of? He said they had before them a Bill which was only a sketch of a Bill, and which was one he did not understand. [Mr. GORST said, that he did not say that he did not understand it.] He was glad he had elicited from the hon. and learned Member that he understood the Bill perfectly. The hon. and learned Member, at all events, said—he would not quote his exact words—it was only a sketch of a Bill. What was it he wanted? He wanted a more complete Bill. And how did he propose to arrive at it? Why, by adjourning the debate on the second reading of the Bill. How was another Bill to be introduced by adjourning this debate? The proposition which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the course of that
    1146
    evening would meet the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he wished what he considered only a sketch of a Bill to be filled up. The right hon Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed that the Bill should be read a second time, and then committed pro formâ, in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to insert certain Amendments which they thought desirable. Neither the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, nor any other Member of Her Majesty's Government, had used the words "re-modelling the Bill," or "substituting a Bill," which was to be entirely a new Bill. They adhered to the principles embodied in this Bill. What was proposed was, that they might insert certain Amendments in order to make the intentions of the Bill clear to hon. Members who did not understand them so perfectly as the hon and learned Member for Chatham. Then, some hon. Member—he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill)—had spoken as if it were a most extraordinary course to propose to commit a Bill pro formâ, and that it involved a substitution of one Bill for another.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that what he said was that the right hon. Gentleman would make up his Bill from the Amendments that would be put upon the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that he would take such suggestions as might be given in the course of the debate.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the sort.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not use those expressions. He thought it would be in the recollection of his hon. and learned Friend that the late Government, which he so consistently supported, not infrequently asked the House to read a Bill a second time and then commit it pro formâ. But if that proposal was not then opposed by their supporters, neither was it opposed by hon. Gentlemen who sat on that side of the House, nor was it necessary to remodel the Bill, or substitute another for it. There was another thing he had heard in the course of that debate that night—namely, that the Bill was to be read a second time pro formâ. In fact, he had never heard of a Bill being read a second time pro formâ. They were not asking the House to read the Bill a

    1147
    second time pro formâ, but to read it a second time, and thus to affirm the principle of the Bill. [Mr. MAC IVER: What is the principle of the Bill?] He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman who asked that question was present about 5 o'clock, when he (Mr. Dodson) endeavoured at considerable length—he was afraid at too considerable a length—to explain to the House what was the object of the Bill. He believed that he had succeeded in explaining the object of the measure. He was sorry if he had not succeeded in the case of the hon. Member. If he had not conveyed his meaning to the hon. Member when he spoke before, he could not undertake to inflict on the House that speech again. He would suggest to the hon. Member that, perhaps, if he would look at the ordinary organs of information tomorrow morning, he might see what he had said, and might then succeed in acquiring some idea of what the object of the Bill was. Now, as he hoped he had made it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham that the adjournment of the debate would not only not attain the object he desired but postpone it, he hoped he would not insist on dividing the House, but would allow the second reading of the Bill to take place then. He thought there was a disposition in the House that it should be taken. They had had a long and interesting debate, and the Government would be prepared, when they got into Committee, to listen with the greatest attention to any suggestions which might be made by hon. Members on either side of the House, in addition to those which had been already thrown out.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had said two things which he thought ought to be noticed. He had said that it was not unusual to commit a Bill pro formâ; but he had said, also, that he never heard of a Bill being read a second time pro formâ. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place with regard to committing a Bill pro formâ, that whenver he had seen that operation performed, it was almost always—he thought he might say it was invariably—done in this wise; that the Bill was introduced, that it was discussed, and after the suggestions had been made for some kind of alteration, the proposers
    1148
    of the Bill having indicated generally the nature of the alterations contemplated, it was asked that the Bill might be committed pro formâ in order that it should be reprinted, so as to give effect to the alterations of which they to some extent indicated the character. Now, on the present occasion, they had no indication whatever of the character of the alterations which they wore told would be introduced into this Bill. And when the right hon. Gentleman said that he never heard of a Bill being read a second time pro formâa, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) also agreed with him that he had never heard of its being proposed to read a Bill the second time pro formâ. But what they were asked to assent to then was something like that curious and unprecedented performance. Now, what had happened before any discussion had taken place was, that a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister by an hon. Gentleman on his own side of the House, as to whether he would assent to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee? and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, in answer, that all the House would be expected to affirm by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill was that the present condition of the law was not satisfactory, and a further protection against accidents was necessay. Well, that was just what they usually understood when they agreed to the first reading of a Bill. On the introduction of the Bill they were told that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory, and that some further provision was necessary, and upon that statement they assented to the introduction of a Bill generally without any minute description of its character. But when they came to the second reading, they could hardly look upon it as being in accordance with their proceedings simply to affirm that the present state of things was unsatisfactory, Well, of course, they knew perfectly well that there had been a very general consensus of opinion that this was a matter upon which there would be legislation. They had also ascertained this, in course of many years of discussion, that it was a most difficult matter to decide in what way they could legislate so as to attain that object without injury and mischief to trade. The right hon. Gentleman came forward in the very first open-

    1149
    ing of the Session, in Her Majesty's Speech, and put forward the measures which Her Majesty's Government were going to bring before the notice of the House, and among them a Bill on this subject. They did expect from this that they should have some guidance, and that they should not be told only that this was a most important subject. But Her Majesty's Government had now virtually said that they had no Bill of their own, and that they had picked up one which they found to be already introduced. They brought it forward and were prepared to recommit it pro formâ, and then introduce what alterations they might wish before it was discussed. But, then, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester said was that he explained the principle some time ago, and a question was put to him, from that side of the House, as to what the principle was. He was not very much surprised to hear that question put, because there was in the course of the evening much discussion as to what really was the principle of this Bill. What was the point upon which they proposed to differ from other persons on this subject? The right hon. Gentleman said they would see that in the morning papers, if they would wait till then. He really felt, in this matter, that they had been rather hardly treated by the Government. They had had it constantly impressed upon them that the late Government were not competent to deal with questions of domestic legislation—that they had no firm grasp of principles. He must say that he expected that they should have something like an example from Her Majesty's Government upon that important point. He was disappointed, and he thought the House had really been led into a most extraordinary confusion and muddle on this important subject; and he did earnestly trust, if this were a sample of the legislation they were to expect from the hands of Her Majesty's Government, that, at all events, they would take this warning, that before they brought any measure before them to ask for a second reading, it would be better for them to clearly make up their minds as to what principles they should ask them to vote upon.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, of all the subjects which could be brought before the House, he thought this one was
    1150
    the least fit to be used as an instrument of Party attack; but so anxious was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to commend himself to the favour of some among his supporters, that he had made the Motion for the adjournment the occasion of making extremely inaccurate statements with regard to Her Majesty's Government, and had made an attack upon the Government based upon those inaccurate statements. He must say that the statements which were attributed to him were altogether inaccurate. No statement was made by him which, in the slightest degree, could lead any hon. Member to suppose that Her Majesty's Government contemplated making material alterations in the aim of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham attempted to make out a case of that kind, and he certainly made out that which, if accurate, he must admit, would be perfectly fatal. The hon. and learned Member ascribed to him (Mr. Gladstone) a series of expressions, not one of which he used. He used "stray hints as to re-modelling the Bill," and various other expressions attributed to him, upon which the hon. and learned Member founded his own case. But he would most emphatically say that those expressions were either due to the fertility of the hon. and learned Gentleman's imagination, or to the inaccuracy of his recollection. Having complained of the House having been baffled by this proposition of the Government, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the question was delayed by the course taken by the Government; but he then proceeded to stultify his own statement by proposing, not what in all consistency he ought to have proposed, the rejection of the measure in order that the Government might produce, what he described as a real Bill, but simply the adjournment of the debate, which would have the effect of hanging up the whole proceeding and of prolonging the uncertainty which he said prevailed, and of preventing the Government from taking any further steps in the matter. That was the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham; and that was the course upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, anxious to make this subject the occasion of a Party attack, was, however, utterly unable to come to an

    1151
    opinion. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell them whether he intended to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate or not. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was accurate in his statement of the facts, he ought to have moved the rejection of the Bill—he was called upon to move the rejection of the measure, if his description of his statements was in the slightest degree a true one. But the statement of the hon. and learned Member was not true; for the words he used were intended to convey, and he believed did convey, that they had heard much upon the subject of this Bill, and had come to an opinion upon it. It had been stated that no discussion had taken place; but he would remind the House that the Bill was by no means a new one, and that it was eminently a Bill of a practical nature, and with regard to which it was peculiarly the duty of the Government in Office not only to obtain the opinions of hon. Members in that House, but likewise to receive information from unofficial sources out-of-doors. In the course of the debate that evening they had been largely favoured with information from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and he considered that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely wrong in his statement that there had been no discussion upon the Bill. There had been a large communication of the views of his own supporters, and also from those of the Government, and from those sources the Government had derived very great advantage. The right hon. Gentleman stated that that was the first time he had ever heard of a Bill being read a second time pro formâ. He (Mr. Gladstone) entirely denied the accuracy of that description of what was now being done. He made no such request to the House. He stated that it was his desire to frame the Bill in such a manner as could only be done after consultation with those who considered the present state of the law unsatisfactory and were practically acquainted with the matter, in order that proper protection might be given to workpeople against accidents. But he never said that he intended to modify or re-model the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. His observations upon the subject of the alterations
    1152
    which the Government desired liberty to make at a subsequent period of the Bill were confined altogether to certain Amendments in detail. He freely admitted that the Government was prepared to avail itself of any assistance which it might receive from either side, with a view to rendering more clear the main specifications of the Bill. It had been asked what was the principle of the Bill? He believed nothing was more dangerous than venturing upon a strict definition of the principle of most Bills. He had heard from the opposite Bench, when a right hon. Gentleman sat upon it who was a distinguished Leader of the Opposition, observations to that effect. Further, he remembered that when the Irish Land Bill was read a second time, the same right hon. Gentleman said that he assented to the second reading of the Bill because it implied nothing except that the Irish Land Laws required to be altered. It seemed to him that that was very nearly a pro formâ reading of the Bill. He was unwilling to refer to those matters on which the right hon. Gentleman had assailed, in his opinion somewhat prematurely, the legislation of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the complaint which was made of the late Government as being incompetent for domestic legislation; but, so far as he (Mr. Gladstone) was aware, it was not incompetency of domestic legislation which was charged upon the late Government, it was a disposition to make other occupation for the Parliament by the disturbance of the relations of the Empire and to the detriment of its interests. He was sorry to have been obliged to correct the statement of the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks upon the general strain and tenour of the complaints made with regard to the late Government. Probably he might think that he himself (Mr. Gladstone) had been one of the chief offenders; but he would like to know in what speech of his it was that he ever presumed to say that his right hon. Friend was incompetent for the work of legislation? He knew very well that he had acknowledged his competency on several occasions in that House, and had lamented that that competency had been turned to so little account. He left this subject, calling the House to witness that he had no-

    1153
    ticed it with, reluctance and in a way simply to reply to some of the statements of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the question before the House, let them try to extricate it from the additional embarrassment in which the inconsistent Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had involved it, in utter contradiction to the tenour of his speech. The question had undergone a most interesting discussion. It was now proposed that they should lose the fruits of their labours by postponing the matter, without taking a single step towards its solution. Let them censure, if they would, the conduct of the Government, or say, if they liked, that they intended doing that which they did not intend—namely, to alter the basis of the Bill; but, at any rate, let progress be made. It was admitted that the question was one most deeply and profoundly interesting to classes so large that he might almost call them the nation itself. The nation was anxious to know what they intended to do with it. He called upon the House to oppose the adjournment; and he hoped that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had not been able to give them his opinion upon the Motion, had by that time made up his mind, and might possibly even support the Government.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it had been his intention to address a few remarks to the House upon the subject-matter of the Bill itself; but he did not propose to go into the very interesting questions contained in it at that late hour—12.35 A.M.-—because there would be ample opportunity for so doing at a more convenient time. He only rose, therefore, upon that interlocutory matter which had been brought before the House, to say, in the first instance, that he entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman when he challenged his right hon. Friend near him (Sir Stafford Northeote) for saying that it was quite novel in Parliamentary history to ask that a Bill should be read a second time pro formâ. He wished to point out that the case referred to by the Prime Minister in connection with the present debate, as a precedent founded on the example of Lord Beaconsfield, when Leader of the Opposition in that House, had not the slightest similarity to the case of the present Bill. Lord Beaconsfield had, as
    1154
    Leader of the Opposition, allowed the second reading of a Government measure to pass unchallenged by a division, on the assumption that such and such things formed the main principle of the Bill. There was no instance of any Government having brought in a Bill and then saying—"You may accept such and such things which are not in the Bill as the principle of the Bill, and that they shall be introduced and discussed hereafter." The position taken by Lord Beaconsfield, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had nothing whatever to do with the present state of things, when the Government came forward and asked them to read a Bill pro formâ, saying, at the same time, they would present the House with another Bill, which could be discussed afterwards. He wanted rather to recall the attention of the House, although he did not mean to discuss the Bill at length, to the real practical question brought before them in the Bill itself; and he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not exactly comprehended the temper of the House in the matter. There were two lines which might be taken with regard to this very delicate and difficult question. They might either say that the workman should be placed in the same position as a stranger, which would, of course, enlarge the liability of the employer very much; or they might say that the law should remain exactly as it was. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said he was not going to take one course or the other; he was going to take the viâ media. But that was the precise difficulty of the question. How were they to take their stand where the viâ media might be? That had been the reason why the question had been hung up so long, and why the late Government took the very sensible and proper course of trying to define in the Bill itself where the liability of the employer was to stop and where it was not. The Bill, in its present shape, failed to satisfy the House and the country on that particular vital point. It was not a question of principle whether the law was to be altered at all. That was a question upon which almost all were agreed. Everybody knew that the country wished the question to be settled. The question, however, was how to settle it, and where was the line to be drawn, so that the employer and

    1155
    the employed might know where their liability began and ceased? It was all important to prevent law suits between the employer and employed, and not to set class against class; but he could not help thinking that if ever there was a Bill which would do that and promote law suits between parties who were most willing to avoid them it was the Bill then before the House. The late Government had in view precisely the same object; whether they would have succeeded or not was another matter. The course which the late Government had taken was a wiser course than that which was now proposed. What they had endeavoured to do had been to draw a line in the Bill itself, indicating the pre-ciseliability of the employer in each of the different kinds of employment, so that there could be no mistake between the employer and the employed as to where the liability began and where it ceased. They were perfectly aware that it was a question of the greatest difficulty and delicacy; but they they were willing to try how in each particular case the matter could be denned. It would be necessary, when they came really and practically to deal with this great question, as it must be dealt with, to point out by the Bill in the case of the different trades and different employments, not by general terms, but by particular words applying to different trades, where the liability began and where it ceased; otherwise they would get into endless confusion. The late Government had referred the Bill to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, for the purpose of defining, so far as they could, those particular points. He understood the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the principle of the Bill, whatever might be the character of the Amendments to the Bill afterwards to be brought before them, was to be found on the Paper at present on the Table of the House, and that the questions to be determined afterwards were matters of "expression and detail," and that, therefore, he was going to commit the Bill pro formâ, for the purpose of clearing up "expression and detail." If that were so he ventured to say that it was not the practice to ask the House to read a Bill pro formâ, and then ask them to read it a second time simply for the purpose of "expression and detail." In the present case, however, he contended that the
    1156
    detail was matter of principle. If it was not so, then he asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the meaning of his answer given to the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), at the beginning of the evening, who had asked him whether, seeing the delicacy of the case, he would not refer it to a Select Committee? The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that he would not state at that moment whether he would refer it to a Select Committee or not; that it would be a matter for further consideration, but that he was anxious for debate; that the Bill should be read a second time, and that, having had the advantage of the debate, he would then commit it pro formâ for the purpose of presenting another Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in shaking his head; if the Bill was altered on such a point of what he maintained was one of principle it must be another Bill. In order to ease the mind of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, the right hon. Gentleman had said that "all the House will do by consenting to the second reading of the Bill will be this—it will consent to the principle that the present condition of the law is not satisfactory, and that further protection against accidents is necessary." Now, that was the sole principle which they had obtained from the Prime Minister himself; but it was simply an abstract resolution that the question called for legislation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that no one could be deceived by his words on the course suggested by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire. But he (Sir P. Assheton Cross) would go back to the time when those words were uttered. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire wanted the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, and why the Government could not consent to that he did not know. However, after the question of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire had been replied to, the hon. Member got up in his place and said he had been going to make a speech on the Bill; but now that he had heard from the Prime Minister that this was not the Bill, but that it was to be committed pro formâ, he would not do so. It was, therefore, quite clear that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, made before the present debate had begun, had

    1157
    convinced the hon. Member for Glamorganshire that the Bill eventually to be discussed was not the present Bill, but was to be another Bill. In dealing with this question, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired that the course taken by the late Government should be pursued by the present one, and a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite were of the same opinion; and the course which they still pressed upon the Government was that the Bill, after it had been read a second time, should be referred to a Select Committee. He had never expressed any opinion against the principle that the Bill ought to be altered. He had not made those statements for the purpose of avoiding or stopping legislation, for he believed honestly and truly that legislation would be facilitated by the matter being referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that this was a question which vitally concerned an enormous number of persons throughout the Kingdom, both workmen and employers, each of whom were entitled to have their views thoroughly represented. He implored the Government to refer the question to a Select Committee, and assured them that they would receive every possible assistance from hon. Members on both sides of the House; but until he heard distinctly from Her Majesty's Government as to that, he could not possibly answer the question whether or not he and his hon. Friends would support the Motion for adjournment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they had at last come to the real issue; the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a proposal to throw over the Bill. The question to be considered was, should there be a measure on the subject of the relations between employers and their employés, during the present Session of Parliament, or should there not? The intention of the Government was to pass a measure to deal with the subject in that period, and it rested with the House to say whether the Government should succeed in their intention or not. They went to issue upon that point with the right hon. Gentleman, who had made one of his dilatory pleas for postponement. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been a Committee which had entered into protracted labours and had satisfied neither employers nor the employed, What
    1158
    reason was there, then, to expect that another Committee would result in anything better? The Government were prepared to carry the measure through; and if the House should not support them in their determination the country would know whom to hold responsible for the defeat of the measure, and remember that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was one of the ringleaders in opposition to it.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the more they heard from the Treasury Bench on the subject of this Bill, the greater became the confusion in which it was involved. The right, hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that he and his Colleagues were prepared to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) upon the question whether the measure should be allowed to pass into law that Session. But that was not the issue. His right hon. Friend had proposed that the Bill should be read a second time, and that then, in the ordinary course, it should be referred to a Select Committee. The proposal of the Government, as stated by the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, was that the Bill should be read a second time; that it should then be committed pro formâ, when certain alterations would be inserted by the Government; and that when that course had been taken the Government would decide whether it should then be submitted to a Select Committee or not. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that the simple proposal of his right hon. Friend was a dilatory plea, and that the measure would not be passed this Session unless the proposal of Her Majesty's Government was assented to. Why, the proposal that the Bill should be first amended by the Government and afterwards referred to a Select Committee was far more dilatory than that of his right hon. Friend. Again, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said—"You have had a Committee on this subject, which sat a long while and presented a Report which was satisfactory to neither party, and now you wish to refer again the whole question to a Select Committee." No such thing. His right hon. Friend never proposed to

    1159
    refer the question to a Select Committee. His proposal was that the Bill should be referred in the ordinary course. He ventured to say that anyone accustomed to the Forms of the House would know, from the intricate and delicate nature of the question, that the proposal to refer a Bill to a Select Committee was a course specially directed to the furtherance of protracted legislation. One would imagine that his right hon. Friend had invited the House to a discussion of all the principles that would be brought before the Select Committee; but he had only suggested that the Bill should be referred in the ordinary course, and the Government, speaking by the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had made no answer whatever to that very proper suggestion.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed there was a general desire that some such Bill as that before the House should become law. They had to decide as to what course would be most likely to lead to that result. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire said, send it to a Select Committee. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said, let the Government have an opportunity of doing what had been frequently done before—what, in his (Mr. Forster's) recollection, had been done in the case of the Education Act—namely, of putting before the House such Amendments to the Bill as, without in the slightest degree deviating from its principles, would make it more satisfactory to both parties concerned. That would take but a little time, and they could proceed with the measure almost immediately. He believed that there was really no Party feeling upon this question, but that there was a sincere intention to get the matter settled. He thought that, after the course proposed by the Government, they would then be able to go into Committee of the Whole House and get through the clauses satisfactorily. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire advised that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, because, in his opinion, that would be the least dilatory way of dealing with the matter. To his (Mr. Forster's) mind, it appeared that that would be the most dilatory course they could pursue. A Select Committee might be empowered to take evidence,
    1160
    and in that case they certainly could not get through the matter during the present Session. In the same way, a Select Committee for clauses would take a very long time. The Government was not prepared to hand over to a Select Committee the charge of making these important alterations in the law. On the contrary, they considered that they could frame a Bill which would be acceptable to the House, and that it could be best done by reading the Bill a second time and committing it pro formâ. If there were any real desire to see the Bill passed into law, the Government should be allowed to take the course which, it thought best. In three or four days their Amendments could be made, and the matter could then be proceeded with rapidly.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would pardon him, he should like to say that he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that, having committed the Bill pro formâ, the Government would then consider whether they would consent to send it to a Select Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that there was a desire on the part of some of his hon. Friends on that side of the House that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and observations had been made with reference to that. But there were two modes of referring to a Select Committee. There might be a Select Committee with power to take evidence, and one without. Probably, when his hon. Friends were referring to a Select Committee on the clauses without power to take evidence, his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire considered that they were referring to a Committee to collect evidence. He (Mr. Gladstone) used the expression that if the Government should ultimately feel disposed to refuse the proposal of some of its supporters to refer the Bill to a Select Committee that they would then have lost nothing. In saying that, he was referring to a Select Committee on the clauses of the Bill, and was endeavouring to show that by committing the Bill pro formâ the Government was not pledged to which particular course it should adopt in the ultimate stages of the measure.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he would not stand for one moment between the House

    1161
    and the division, did he not think it necessary to remind hon. Members of the distinct subject upon which they were debating. Hon. Gentlemen there present had amongst their constituents working men, and let him remind them that the way they gave their votes upon this question would be very narrowly watched. Whether or not any Bill affecting the law of employers and employed was passed that Session, this was, nevertheless, a subject which was a test question at the last Election. Whether they voted one way or the other that night, yet the question would come up again and again, and the votes and the speeches of each hon. Member would be recorded against him in the minds of his constituents. He did not know whether he was in Order in referring to the authority by which hon. Gentlemen sat in that House; but he could tell them that, some day or other, they would come face to face with that tribunal. This was a question upon which they should not be led away by the speeches of hon. Members upon one side of the House or the other, but should keep before them the point that they must decide whether or not a Bill regarding the liability of employers for injuries caused to workmen in their employ was to be passed or not during the present Session.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that he should ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion. His only object in making it was to get as quickly as he could at the propositions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that he would effect that object better by letting the Government take the second reading of the Bill pro formâ. He was willing that that course should be taken. As the accuracy of the statement which he had imputed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been questioned, he would say that the words used by the right hon. Gentlemen were these—
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. and learned Member that he was out of Order.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 137.]
  (Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Stafford Howard.)
  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 137.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, that he rose for the purpose of moving that the Bill be now read a second lime. There were at the present time about 10 Acts of Parliament which dealt with the question of salmon and freshwater fisheries. Of those, four Acts were the most important; but there was so much confusion that, at the present time, the law was very difficult to make out. Mr. Walpole, H.M. Inspector of Fisheries, had devoted the whole of his last Report to the question of consolidation of the law, his scheme had been considered by a Committee of Gentlemen well skilled in the subject, and it was upon the result of their recommendations that the present Bill was framed. So far as the Amendments were concerned, they were chiefly in technical details. Certain matters of surplusage were proposed to be eliminated, and the various Acts of Parliament were brought into harmony and simplified. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Joseph Bailey,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 21st June.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Whitwell, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Monk, Mr. Wills.)
  BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 163.] SECOND BEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WHITWELL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was one of two Bills which it was desired should be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General consented to that course being taken, and he should therefore ask the House to assent too. He begged to move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as he could not hear a word of what was said by the hon. Member for Kendal he should like to know the nature of the Bill. He thought that they ought not to allow a Bill of that magnitude to be passed without some explanation on the subject. On that side of the House they knew nothing whatever about it. He thought it would be well if some Member of the Government would give some indication of the nature of the Bill. The measure had a very high-sounding title, and might make some very important changes in the law, audit was certainly the duty of someone or other to give them some explanation on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. Member seemed to have paid more attention to the Bill during the last Parliament than now. The Bill was the same which had been introduced by Mr. Sampson Lloyd—whose absence they all regretted—and it was the wish of the Government that it should be referred to a Select Committee. It was referred to a Committee in the last Parliament, and it was desirable that it should be so referred again. The Government were perfectly willing that the Bill should be read a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee. He did not think that at that hour of the night he need give any further explanation of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

MOTIONS.
  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to the expediency of acquiring on behalf of the Inhabitants of London the undertakings of the existing Metropolitan Water Companies; and also to examine and report whether certain agreements, or any of them, already entered into provisionally for the purchase of these Companies would furnish a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition; and, further, to inquire and report as to the nature and extent of the powers of the "Water Companies to levy Water Rates and Rents, and how far it may be desirable to modify the same."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had come to the conclusion that the appointment of a Select Committee was not always for the purpose of shelving a question. He was also very glad to find that he was of opinion that, although various Committees and Commissions had sat upon this subject, yet there was still room for further inquiry into these questions. There were one or two other subjects upon which he was also pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman had come to a conclusion. The first point he had apparently decided was that this matter was one of considerable difficulty, and that there were a great number of points which required the most careful consideration, and that this was not a matter which could be dealt with in a hasty manner, but that it required great care and caution, more especially considering the number of Water Companies supplying the Metropolis with water, and also that there was no central body in the Metropolis to acquire their rights and supply water. It gave him pleasure also to notice that the right hon. Gentleman had not the smallest intention to treat this matter as a mere Party question. Throughout all the negotiations that had taken place, and in everything that he had stated, he had invariably endeavoured to divest the question of all Party character. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was the very first person consulted as to the proposed Commission by the late Government, thus showing that, so far as the late Government was concerned, there was no Party bias in the matter. He could assure him that, at the present moment, his hon. Friends on that side of the House would be perfectly willing to lend their endeavours to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for the benefit of this great Metropolis. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman took an opportunity the other day of making a somewhat elaborate statement upon this matter. He wished that statement had been made upon a question put on going into Committee of Supply, because then there would have been an opportunity of making some observations concerning it. Upon that statement he desired to make one or two remarks. The right hon. Gentleman very properly

    1165
    congratulated himself and the House upon the fact that he had secured the co-operation of the Corporation of the City of London, and also of the Metropolitan Board of Works. But he seemed to think that that was the first time upon which their co-operation had been secured with regard to this measure. In justice not only to himself, but also to the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, he could inform him that that was not the case. They were the first persons with whom he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) put himself in communication, and they promised him the most ready co-operation. He should be wrong if he did not at the present moment state that he had, during the time that He held Office, obtained both from the City of London and from the Metropolitan Board of Works the greatest possible assistance in bring this matter forward. He always found his hon. and gallant Friend who presided over the deliberations of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ever ready to give him all assistance, and the Corporation had been no wit behindhand in every matter for the benefit of the Metropolis. He wished to guard himself against allowing it to be supposed that it was at all a new thing for the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works to be consulted. There were two classes of persons who, it seemed to him, were conspicuous by their absence, from the statement made by the Secretary of State. To one of those classes he was rather surprised to see that the right hon. Gentleman had made no reference. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware that the number of persons living in the district of the Metropolitan water area was large in comparison with the number living in the district under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was surprised at the absence of any reference to the consumers of water outside the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was also surprised at what appeared to be rather a matter of satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that he had had no communication with the Water Companies. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had said that there were two questions of a novel kind—one, whether the existing supply of water was the best, or whether it was better to obtain a supply at a cheaper rate. He
    1166
    (Sir If. Assheton Cross) thought that that alternative was known to everybody, and it had certainly received considerable attention on his part. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten for a moment the deliberations of the Commission which sat upon that question, and reported in 1869. He must also have forgotten the Report of the Committee on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and also the action of the Metropolitan Board itself, which, having had the experience of all those Commissions, had come to the conclusion that it was to the interest of the Metropolis that there should be a purchase made of the existing Water Companies. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, although it was not impossible to provide a wholly fresh supply, yet there were very many difficulties in the way of this being done; and he did not think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would lead persons very readily to embark in a Company which had that object in view. He thought it was hardly fair that the ratepayers and water consumers should have, in addition to the cost of the present water supply, another scheme at, perhaps, the expense of £20,000,000 for bringing water from elsewhere. At all events, it would not cheapen the supply of water. Again, there would be some practical difficulties in the way, such as that of laying the mains about the streets. He rather gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this also was a new subject, and that he deserved credit for stating the point, although it would seem that anyone who had to consider the question of water supply at all must necessarily, at the very outset, have had this point presented him. He wished to make a few remarks with regard to the subjects which would come before the Committee. He presumed that the Select Committee would consider whether it was expedient to get some fresh supply, and he agreed that it was not expedient to give the inquiry too large a scope, or to hang up this important question too long, because the longer the Companies were allowed to remain in their present position the more would the value of their property increase—and it was at that time increasing at the rate of something like £1,000,000 a-year—and for that reason the Companies were laying out considerable sums of money, which

    1167
    would enable them to give a supply at a small additional cost to them to a large number of houses rising up yearly in their districts. Last year he believed that 60 miles of new streets were added to the Metropolis, and there was no doubt that the income of these Companies would largely increase in proportion. He thought it should be clearly understood, therefore, whether the Committee were merely to go in a perfunctory manner through all the materials which had been already collected with reference to the question whether water could be obtained from other sources than the present supplies. An inquiry of that kind would be both a very long and a very expensive one. He could not see, therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman could mean by saying that it was not expedient to give the inquiry too large a scope, when he said, also, that the question of supply was one which must be considered. He would have thought that the matter was one about which the Government might have satisfied themselves without the appointment of a Committee. He then came to the second part of the Motion, which was that the Committee should examine and report whether certain agreements, or any of them, already entered into provisionally for the purchase of these Companies, would furnish a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition. If it was expedient to purchase, there were only two ways in which they could do so; they must either purchase by agreement, or by compulsion subject to arbitration. If they purchased by agreement there must be two parties to that agreement, and if they purchased by compulsion they would be placed in the hands of the arbitrator. It was, therefore, very difficult to see into what the Committee was to inquire, so far as the value of the Companies was concerned, because if they bought by agreement it would be no use to say the value of this Company is so much, and, as he had already pointed out, if they purchased by compulsion, they could not be compelled to sell at a particular price, and the matter would then go to arbitration. Purchase by agreement was the sole principle of the Bill brought in by the late Government—that was to say, it was the principle of purchasing by agreement in the first instance if satisfactory terms could be arranged between the Me-
    1168
    tropolis and the Companies. He quite agreed that the Government were in a somewhat awkward position in taking up this matter, because they did not like taking upon themselves to buy for the water consumers when the ratepayers were not parties to the bargain; and if the late Government had brought in a Bill which attempted to do this, and had endeavoured to force it through the House, then, he said, they would have been open to some of the remarks which had been unjustly used concerning them. But that was not the course of the late Government at all; they had to see at how low a price they could get the Companies to sell, in order to take the matter into the Committee Room in. the best way for the interests of the consumers of water, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the City of London. Those agreements had been entered into on the understanding that they were subject to the most rigid scrutiny by the Committee, and that if the Committee thought they were too high the House would, no doubt, reject them, although, on the other hand, and that only if the Committee believed them to be such terms as were proper, would they have asked the House to pass a Bill to deal with them. Again, when the Companies came to explain their case before the Committee, and when the Metropolitan water consumers had explained their case, had the Committee thought that smaller terms should be taken, this could have been arranged with the consent of all parties by agreement; and it was part of his agreement that the Bill was not to be withdrawn upon that ground, unless at the request, not of one, but of the majority, of the Companies concerned in the purchase. He could not but regret that the Companies and the consumers of water had not had an opportunity of talking this matter over before the Committee of the House. It was no easy matter to bring the Companies before the House at all, and it was with the greatest possible difficulty that they had been approached. He only made these remarks for the purpose of showing that the Committee would enter upon their inquiry with this disadvantage—that they would not have the Companies coming before them willingly—that was to say, with their agreements and ready to prove and enter into their case.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood that the agreements were binding upon the Companies in the case of the Government being willing to introduce a Bill to carry them into effect.
    SIR R. ASSHETON GROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not quite understand his meaning. The agreement was that a Bill should be brought in to give the agreements with the Companies effect, and that the Bill should be referred to the Committee. He sincerely trusted that the Companies would take that view of the matter, and come before the Committee, in which case he should be quite content; but they were putting the Committee to this disadvantage—that, whereas if a Bill had been brought in affirming the principle of purchase of the Companies, and not in the least binding the House, or anybody else, with reference to the price to be charged, if that Bill had been read a second time, he had not the slightest doubt that the Companies would have appeared before the Committee, and that some satisfactory agreement would ultimately have been arrived at. He thought there would be great risk of difficulty arising in coming to a conclusion as to the value of the agreements, if the Companies did not take the same view as the Government and appear before the Committee. Indeed, he was not at all clear that if the Companies chose they might not say they would have nothing more to do with the subject. The last part of the Reference was that the Committee should further inquire and report as to the nature and extent of the powers of the Water Companies to levy water rates and rents, and how far it might be desirable to modify the same. He had been very glad to hear from reports in the newspapers, which he hoped were correct, that the right hon. Gentleman had given an answer upon this subject in almost the same terms as those which he had himself given last Session. Notwithstanding that when he had given that answer it had been cavilled at by a great number of persons both in and out of the House, it was a matter of satisfaction to him that the right hon. Gentleman, after looking into the point, had arrived at the same conclusion as himself—namely, that they must use great caution in invading the rights conferred by Acts of Parliament. He was not saying that the Acts con-
    1170
    ferred upon the Companies were Acts which they ought not to have had; but Parliament, in its wisdom at certain times, had granted to many Companies rather extraordinary powers. It was not a question whether Parliament would grant those powers now; they had to be dealt with as they existed at the present time. Power had been given to the Water Companies to charge upon the annual value of property; and the right hon. Gentleman had said it was a mistake to think that an alteration of assessment altered the legal right, and that it was also a mistake to think that Mr. Goschen's Act altered that matter of law. The question was, what was the annual value of a house on which they charge? and that was a question to be decided by law before Justices appointed for that purpose. Again, the right hon. Gentleman went onto say, that although he was anxious to prevent any injustice being done, still he did not know anything more unsafe than to make people suppose that the securities given to persons in property by Act of Parliament were not safe, and were likely to be invaded. That was a statement which he would have expected from such an accomplished lawyer as the right hon. Gentleman, and one which it had given him great pleasure to read. He hoped it would be a long time before the House invaded the rights of any person in the State. Having pointed out what were some of the difficulties in the way of the Committee, he could only repeat that he sincerely hoped the object they had in view might be accomplished, and he believed that the wisest course would be that the Companies should be purchased, and it was to be hoped that they would appear before the Committee and argue out the question, which he trusted would be settled buring the present Session of Parliament. On his part, he could promise the right hon. Gentleman every assistance in his power; but as to the first part of the Reference, he thought it would be wise to limit it in some shape, because, in his opinion, if the Committee were to enter upon the large and interesting question involved, their Report was not likely to be received for a very long time. There was one part of the question which had not been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the constitution of the trust that would have to administer this property.

    1171
    The right hon. Gentleman had so entirely absolved himself from all responsibility that he appeared to desire to have no responsibility at all in the matter. It was rather astonishing that reference to this vital point should not have been made. He agreed that in the Bill laid before the House by the late Government there was a somewhat elaborate Water Commission appointed; but it also contained one principle which was enunciated, as he believed, for the first time in the House, and which he hoped would always be adhered to in the formation of any body for the purpose of carrying into execution an Act dealing with the supply of water for the Metropolis, and that was that there should be direct representation of the Metropolis. In conclusion, he again assured his right hon. Friend of every possible assistance on his part in his endeavours to arrive at a right conclusion.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he thought the course pursued by the Government was very instructive. The House would remember that there was nothing upon which the speakers from Liberal platforms were so eloquent, which created in the mind of Liberal orators so much indignation, and gave rise to more scathing language than the proposal of the late Government to deal with the water supply of the Metropolis. It had been brought forward upon every possible occasion as a charge against them, and had been referred to as the cause of the Dissolution of the last Parliament. After all those denunciations by the responsible Leaders of the Opposition, those who were interested in the Metropolis water supply naturally expected that the first thing the Liberal Government would do when they came into power would be to introduce some comprehensive scheme to deal with the whole question in a manner entirely different from that proposed by the late Government. It was supposed that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen denounced the scheme of the late Government they had formed their own opinion as to the proper means to be adopted. But what had been the proceeding of the present Government since they came into power? The Home Secretary appeared by no means to have made up his mind as to the right course to be pursued, and seemed to be fishing round about for suggestions as to the proper means to be used
    1172
    in dealing with the question. Now, after all these denunciations and devices; after all the time they had had for consideration, the new Government had brought forward a proposal identical with that of the last Government, and for which the latter had been so roundly denounced. The proposal of the late Home Secretary was that these agreements should be referred to a Select Committee. That was precisely the same which the right hon. Gentleman opposite now made. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not object to that mode of proceeding, because it was probably the best way that could be found of dealing with the agreements; but he could not help feeling that the Reference was being overlaid with other questions which could have no other effect than to hang up this question for an indefinite period. Had the right hon. Gentleman confined the Reference to the investigation of the agreements which had been entered into he thought there was every probability that a very speedy conclusion would have been arrived at. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to ask the Committee also to go into the enormous question of whether or not it would not be better policy to bring an altogether fresh supply of water into London. This would necessarily entail a vast investigation, which would extend over a long period of time, and the result would be that nothing would be done that Session nor probably the next. The Reference to the Committee should have been limited to the consideration of the agreements; and if it had been seen that the terms were too high, and that there was no possibility of getting them modified, the question might then have arisen whether something might not be done to get a supply of water elsewhere. But instead of that the Home Secretary had overweighted the Reference, and the matter would be hung up for an extended period in consequence. Now, as he represented a Metropolitan constituency which had been expecting for years past the Government to take some steps in this matter, he protested against any course being adopted which would any further delay the settlement of that important question. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to making some Amendment in the terms of the Reference, so that the question—whether or not these agree-

    1173
    ments upon which they had entered were in themselves proper agreements, or could be modified—should stand alone without being overladen with other parts of the question. The longer the matter was hung up the more the Metropolis would have to pay. He understood that the Water Companies might at any moment put up their rates, inasmuch as they had not to wait for the valuation of the Metropolitan property; that, however, took place next year, and the Companies would only be acting strictly within their rights if they raised their rates next year when the valuation was to be made. For all these reasons he urged upon the Government to make this Reference as simple as possible, so as to see whether the Water Companies were likely to sell upon reasonable terms; and then, if it were found that no reasonable bargain could be made with them, as he had said before, there would be time to investigate the question whether some steps could be taken to provide the Metropolis with some other supply of water if the Companies would not listen to reason.
    MR. BRANDsaid, that the terms of Reference seemed to him to open the door for a very wide inquiry. The Select Committee was to inquire and report as to the expediency of acquiring on behalf of the Metropolis of London the undertakings of the existing Water Companies within the Metropolitan area, and also
    "To examine and report whether certain agreements, or any of them, already entered into provisionally for the purchase of these Companies would furnish a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition;"
    and, further, the Committee was empowered to
    "Inquire and report as to the nature and extent of the powers of the Water Companies to levy Water Rates and Rents, and how far it may be desirable to modify the same."
    He should have thought that it would have been a sufficient question for the Committee to inquire as to whether the Water Companies were prepared to accept the terms that this House could offer them. But the terms of Reference seemed to leave it open to the Committee to institute a fresh inquiry into the character and suitability of the existing sources of water supply. That was a question that had been inquired into by a Royal Commission in 1869. The Report of that Commission was
    1174
    very satisfactory, and all the facts were now before the present Committee, upon which they could come to a satisfactory conclusion. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether it would not be possible to narrow the inquiry by referring the Report of the Commission of 1869 to the Select Committee simply to report as to the desirability of acquiring the undertakings of the Water Companies on the basis of the Report of the Royal Commission? With respect to the question as to the existing powers of the Water Companies, it would be in the recollection of the House that he put a question on the matter to his right hon. Friend the other day. For his part, he fully admitted that there were some questions that might be asked with propriety by independent Members of responsible Ministers, although it might be for them to consider whether it was to the public interest that they should answer them. His object in putting this question, which was on a matter concerning the interests of the whole community, was to make it clear to the Water Companies that Parliament would look with disfavour upon any attempt to raise their rents pending the result of these investigations.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be extremely anxious to come to terms speedily with the Water Companies. It was clear, however, that by the terms of this Reference the Committee could not help considering any plan that might be brought before them for obtaining a fresh supply of water, either from the lakes or elsewhere, and that they must take evidence on that subject. He thought it was undesirable, both in the interests of the Companies and of the public, that such an inquiry should take place. The knew that the expense of a Royal Commission was something enormous; and if this Committee was going into the same inquiry as came before the Royal Commission, over which the Duke of Richmond presided, it would lead to very great expense, while, at the same time, the question had been very satisfactorily settled by the Report of that Royal Commission. If they were to set up all these questions again very great expense would be thrown, not only upon the Water Companies, but on the ratepayers. He hoped

    1175
    the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would alter the terms of the Reference, so as to narrow it to the question whether the terms made with the Water Companies, with or without any alterations, should be carried through, and, if so, to report the matter to the House. In that way the House would have materials before it to judge of the terms to be made with the Water Companies. He trusted that the inquiry would be made in a fair and open spirit; but if the Committee inquired into the general question of the water supply of London its labours would not come to an end this or even next year. He could assure his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Water Companies were now placed in a very indefinite and difficult position, as, owing to the nature of the existing agreements, they were unable to enter into contracts for new works, however necessary such contracts might be for the interests of the Companies. He fully agreed, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of despatch in this matter. He was glad that he had come to the determination to refer these agreements to a Committee; but he would suggest that there should be simply a Reference to the Committee to consider what terms, if any, could be made with the existing Companies.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not surprised that his hon. Friends who represented the Water Companies should wish to have the question considered on the assumption that there was no other method to be pursued than that of taking over the undertakings of the existing Water Companies. It was only natural that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets should take that view.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he had never said anything of the kind. What he did say was that the first portion of the inquiry should be confined to the consideration of whether the undertakings of the present Water Companies could be bought at a reasonable price, and that then the other questions could be gone into.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he could take no responsibility in this matter unless he was allowed to open the whole question as to whether the supply of water given by the Companies was or was not a supply worth
    1176
    having. If the House were of opinion that the question was not open, then he would have nothing to do with the matter. The City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works had made it a condition of their co-operation that that point should be considered; if the Committee were of opinion that the acquisition of the undertakings of the Water Companies was not worth while, then it would not be necessary for them to consider the terms of purchase. If that matter were excluded from the first part of the inquiry, then it would be useless. He would be no party to the inquiry if his hands were tied up in the matter. He considered the existence of the alternative scheme to be the only means of dealing with the Companies; and those who desired to exclude that consideration from the Committee would absolutely prevent the inhabitants of London from ever having the chance of obtaining a reasonable and proper supply of water.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that what he had stated was that, in his opinion, the first thing should be to ascertain the terms to be made with the existing Companies, and then to investigate the question of whether it would be better to bring water into London from some other source.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must have the question open whether it was worth purchasing these undertakings. The Corporation of London had expressly stipulated that it should be at liberty to consider whether the undertakings were worth buying or not at any price. He must, therefore, ask the House to leave the Reference as it was, or he should wash his hands of the whole concern. That was also the condition which the Metropolitan Board had made the basis of their co-operation. The information contained in a Report already published might lead the Committee to come to a sound conclusion; and they might report, without making further inquiries, on the basis of the Report of 1869. But still the matter must be open to them. The first question was to determine whether the present supply of water to London from the Thames was worth buying at all. Then, if it were decided that it was worth buying at a reasonable price, the inquiry would proceed as to whether the price was reasonable or not. In his opinion, that was the best course that could be taken. Whether or not Lon-

    1177
    don should continue to be supplied with water from the Thames was the first question to be considered. Whether for £'20,000,000 they could obtain a better and more abundant supply of water for themselves, or whether it would be worth while to pay £30,000,000 for an inferior water supply. If they spent £20,000,000 in getting a good supply of water it would be cheaper than buying a bad supply for £30,000,000.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman could get a better supply of water for London than it at present enjoyed for £20,000,000 he would confer a very great benefit upon the Metropolis. Speaking as one of the Representatives of the Metropolis, he must say that very great responsibility rested upon those who had to deal with this question. The right hon. Gentleman found these agreements, which were intended to be the basis of the Act of Parliament and the subject of negotiations, of evidence and discussions before a Committee of the House of Commons; and the right hon. Gentleman would incur a very grave responsibility indeed if the abandonment of the Bill or the failure of the negotiations resulted in a payment by the Metropolis of a larger sum for the water supply of London than the amount expressed in the Bill. The question was a very serious and a very difficult one, and it could not be long delayed, and upon the mode in which it would be treated very great and serious results would depend. It appeared to him that the Committee ought to enter into a discussion of these questions with their bauds perfectly free, and with full opportunity to consider the whole matter. No reasonable man would exclude them from considering whether the terms of the Water Companies were unreasonable, or whether the water was good, and they must consider in what way the Metropolis was to be furnished with water in the future. But if it was proposed to invite the Committee to enter into the question ah initio, and to ignore the inquiries which had already been made, the subject would occupy their attention for some years. It was the duty of the Metropolitan Water Companies to make provision for a supply of water for the whole of the Metropolis under certain Acts of Parliament. They must come to Parliament year after
    1178
    year for further power and additional capital for that purpose, and he believed there were Bills now pending with that object. Those Bills involved a further charge upon the Metropolis, and delay in dealing with this question would cause very large unnecessary expenditure. There was no help for it, because, under Acts of Parliament with which these Water Companies must comply, they were compelled to come to Parliament. Speaking as a Metropolitan Member, he thought the Government was responsible for seeing this question settled with the least possible delay, and in the most effective manner. It would certainly not be so settled by withdrawing from the Committee the power to say that the present water supply was bad, for they ought to have the power of saying that not only the terms were ridiculously high, but that they could get a better supply elsewhere. But then they came to the question of the withdrawal by Parliament of powers deliberately given to public Companies on the faith of which money had been invested, and any undue interference with their rights would press very hardly upon them. He would conclude with one remark—that he trusted arbitration would not be resorted to. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was very well aware that arbitration was a very costly mode of arriving at value. There must be many instances within the right hon. Gentleman's recollection in which much larger amounts were given under arbitration than ought to have been paid, and he dreaded the application of that principle to the acquisition of the rights of the Water Companies. If an Act of Parliament were passed by which the matter were sent to arbitration, the result would be that the ratepayers of the Metropolis would suffer very heavily. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) had had some little experience of arbitration in past years, and he must say that most of those arbitrations had gone enormously against the consumer. He earnestly hoped that his right hon. Friend would see that delay in this matter was highly injurious, and that he would feel that the Metropolis was looking to him to prevent further expense being thrown upon the rates in consequence.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that he should like to say one or two words with

    1179
    respect to the question of the London water supply. This was made a burning question at the last election, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that in 1874 Her Majesty's Government came in in beer, and in 1880 went out in water. At all events, those were the remarks that he saw attributed to the right hon. Gentleman in the newspaper. He thought that Her Majesty's Government would eventually be responsible for any measure upon this subject. At the same time he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the terms of Reference would include the question of a fresh source of water supply for London. Suppose it were considered inexpedient to acquire the undertakings of the Water Companies, would the Committee be then precluded from going into the question of a fresh supply for London? There was no doubt that this was a very important question; and, reading the first part of the terms of Reference, he could not see how the Committee was to go into the question of a fresh source of supply. He wished also to press upon the Government that they ought to place no one upon this Committee who held any shares in the Water Companies of London. Very important questions indeed were raised, and it was essential to the ratepayers of the Metropolis that they should be calmly and impartially dealt with.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the question raised by the hon. Member for Guildford was a very important one. The Committee last year upon East Indian Railways raised a very similar question to that of the purchase of the undertakings of the Water Companies. In appointing that Committee he believed that Mr. Speaker decided, as contrary to the Rule of the House, that anyone should be upon that Committee who had a pecuniary interest in the railway. As this was a question of the possible purchase of the undertakings of these Companies, he supposed that this Rule would hold good, and that it would be impossible for anyone who was either directly or indirectly interested in the Companies to sit upon the Committee. He believed that the ruling went to this extent—that an hon. Member was disqualified for serving on the East Indian Railway Committee who was interested only as a trustee.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no doubt a general principle existed that no Member having a direct pecuniary interest could serve on a Committee on a Private Bill. He could not answer this question at once without knowing the nature of the interest enjoyed.
    SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, so far as hon. Members on that side of the House were concerned, that question had been decided over and over again. No person on that side of the House who had any pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of inquiries was ever appointed to Committees.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Select Committee appointed," to inquire and report as to the expediency of acquiring on behalf of the Inhabitants of London the undertakings of the existing Metropolitan Water Companies; and also to examine and report whether certain agreements, or any of them, already entered into provisionally for the purchase of these Companies would furnish a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition; and further to inquire and report as to the nature and extent of the powers of the Water Companies to levy Water Kates and Rents, and how far it may be desirable to modify the same."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    And, on Juno 7, Committee nominated as follows:—Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Sir RICHARD CROSS, Mr. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE, Mr. BRAND, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. CAINE, Baron HENRY DE WORMS, Mr. FIRTH, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr. THO-ROLD ROGERS, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. JOHN-HOLMS, and Mr. PARNELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    And, on June 8, Mr. HUBBARD added.

    LIVEEPOOL COEPORATION WATER BILL.
    Select Committee on the Liverpool Corporation Water Bill nominated:—Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. JOSERH PEASE, Mr. M'LAGAN, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, and Mr. KNOWLBS.—(Mr. Dodson.)

    REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. M'LAGAN, Bill to amend "The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAGAN, Colonel ALEXANDER, and Mr. ROBERT DUFF.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 208.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* (77).
Second Reading—Burials (73); Public Works Loans* (74).

BURIALS BILL—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BURIALS BILL—(No. 73.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I rise to move, as an Amendment, that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. I do so with great anxiety, and crave your Lordships' indulgence. My Lords, this Bill was in your Lordships' hands for the first time only on Thursday last; and now, after a brief interval of a week, you are called upon to accept it. My Lords, this Bill concerns the destinies, and may imperil the existence of the Church of England, not, indeed, as a spiritual society, but as a national institution; and, therefore, it affects the welfare of the Realm of England as intimately connected with the Church. My Lords, I humbly appeal to this great Assembly, one of the most august in Christendom, to which the minds of loyal men in this land are now turning with hope in these restless days; and unless noble Lords are fully satisfied that this a good measure I earnestly entreat them not to vote for it. If it is a good measure, a little longer consideration will certainly do it no harm; but if, as
  1014
  I believe and shall endeavour to show, it is disastrous to our best interests in Church and State, the acceptance of this Bill to-night will involve calamitous consequences to both, of which no man can foresee the end, and from it it may be impossible to recover. My Lords, I am fully persuaded that the noble and learned Lord who has presented this Bill to your Lordships, and who has honoured me with his friendship for many years, is animated by kindly feelings to the Church of Englynd, of which he is so bright an ornament; and that he has endeavoured to mitigate, by soothing sedatives in some of its clauses, the severity of the pains and penalties which it inflicts upon her. Indeed—may I be allowed to use the comparison—this Bill seems to me to be an Act for the martyrdom of the National Church under the narcotic influences of chloroform. There is a slight infusion of chloroform in Clause 5, which reserves the fees at burial to the officers of the Church. There is a larger dose in Clauses 6 and 7, which contains the specious words, "Christian and orderly services, to be conducted in a decent manner," and which make any infraction of such provisions to be a misdemeanour; but the largest injection of chloroform is in Clause 11 and Schedule B, which pay a tribute of respect to the Convocations of the Bishops and Clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, and embody in this Bill the results of their deliberation. My Lords, I have but one objection to these chloroform clauses—pardon, my Lords, the expression—and that is, that they are simply, I apprehend, worth nothing. If this Bill is accepted by your Lordships I should much fear—indeed, some of its most ardent supporters have frankly told us—that when it is returned to you from "another place" in the month of August next the pains and penalties of the martyrdom of the Church will still remain in it, and perhaps be intensified, and the soothing sedatives—may I call them the amiable anodynes and anaesthetics of these chloroform clauses—will have disappeared from it. My Lords, one plea urged for this Bill is that it is an act of justice. But justice is a consistent thing. Not long ago the distinguished personage who is now at the head of Her Majesty's Government carried a Bill for the abolition of compulsory church rates,

  1015
  on a plea of justice. He alleged that, inasmuch as our churchyards belong to the Church of England, under conditions known to the law, it was not equitable that those persons who dissent from her should be required to contribute to the maintenance of those churchyards with which they have no connection. And now, my Lords, the argument is inverted, and it is urged, on a plea of justice, that these same parties should be admitted to share in these same churchyards, with which it was before alleged they had no connection, and to which they contribute nothing. How these two pleas of justice can be reconciled I cannot quite understand. Next, my Lords, on behalf of this Bill, it is pleaded that it is our duty to relieve aggrieved consciences from the burden that presses upon them. Everyone, it is alleged, must die and be buried, and it is a grievance that a man should not be buried by those persons and with such service as he prefers. And this Bill is intended to remove that grievance. Let us examine this a little. This alleged grievance, my Lords, has no existence in our great towns, for they are provided with cemeteries where a person may be buried as he likes best; and the Bill does not extend to Ireland or Scotland so that the grievance, whatever it may be, is limited to our rural parishes in England. My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed, without presumption, to claim some little right to apeak with experience on this point. About 12 years ago, by the unexpected kindness of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), I was recommended to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to name me for election by the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln. The diocese of Lincoln is the most extensive diocese in England, and is mainly agricultural. I can assure your Lordships that for those 12 years I have never known a single instance of the grievance complained of. The religious Dissenters thankfully accept the Burial Service of the National Church of England. Let me illustrate this by an example. In a parish of North Lincolnshire the Dissenting minister died; the leading members of his congregation came as a deputation to the clergyman of the parish, who was rather a stiff man, and earnestly entreated him to bury their deceased
  1016
  minister. They wore afraid he might decline to do so. But what was his answer? "Gentlemen," lie said, "I will gladly bury your minister," and he added, somewhat archly, "I shall be happy to bury you all." The fact is, there is no grievance at all in such cases. But, my Lords, I candidly allow that there are such persons as political Dissenters; and, if this Bill becomes law, they will agitate and coerce the religious Dissenter to forego the Services of the Church, and to resort to other services performed by others in our churchyards. Let me illustrate this by another case. In a North Lincolnshire parish—Laceby—some time ago, I consecrated a portion of a cemetery for the use of the funeral rites of the Church of England. Some years afterwards I asked how many persons had been buried in the consecrated portion, and how many in the unconsecrated? The answer was, about 40 in the consecrated, and only one in the unconsecrated; and he, my Lords, was a person who, before his death, had actually selected a spot in the consecrated portion where he wished to be buried, but his Dissenting relatives were over-persuaded to bury him in the other. I doubt not, my Lords, that the political Dissenter would be very thankful to your Lordships for removing his alleged grievance by this Bill, and he would then have a good hope that you would next proceed to remove another grievance, which is the real grievance in the background—namely, the Established Church of England. But, my Lords, if you propose to remove grievances and to relievo consciences, let me entreat you to take a large and statesmanlike view of this subject. In order to relieve the conscience and to remove a grievance of some who are not proprietors of our churchyards and contribute nothing to them, you are called upon in this Bill to impose a heavy burden on the consciences of a very large and loyal body of men, the parochial clergy of the Church of England, some 20,000 in number—15,500 of whom have already protested against the principle of this Bill—who are the freeholders of these churchyards, and who freely give Christian burial to all who can legally claim it, and who are ready to assist in providing parochial cemeteries. You are asked in this Bill to wound their con-

  1017
  sciences and to deprive them of their rightful possession. My Lords, I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution which has been adopted to-day by the Lower House of Convocation, which represents the clergy of this Province, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read it—
  "That the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury are bound by their duty to the Church humbly to record the expression of their deep regret that it should be judged necessary, on the part of Her Majesty's Advisers, to propose to Parliament a measure which, if it shall become law, will lor the first time in the history of this country—save only and except the time of the 'Commonwealth'—take away from the Church of England the exclusive control, according to her own doctrine and discipline, of the use of her own churchyards.—Carried on a show of hands by 59 to 7.
  "That this House especially desires by this solemn protest to deliver itself of all responsibility as to any dishonour which may be done to Almighty God by the character of the worship which in the event of the passing of this Bill may hereafter be offered in churchyards.—Carried nemine dissentients.
  "ALWYNE COMPTON, Prolocutor."
  Such are the words of the representatives of the clergy of this Province. Now, my Lords, let me ask, are the consciences of all other persons to be regarded, and the consciences of the clergy and faithful laity of the Church of England to be treated with scorn? Would not this be to disparage loyalty and to encourage spoliation by law? It is alleged, indeed, that our churchyards are protected against any disorderly or irreligious abuses by the clause in this Bill which makes such abuses to be punishable as misdemeanours. But, my Lords, who is to know beforehand what will take place? Any man or even woman is allowed by this Bill to conduct those services. And they will be extempore, and who is to incur the cost and obloquy of prosecuting in such eases? Are the clergy to do it? And if they do not, who will? Are the police to be judges of orthodoxy? This clause will be a dead letter, and this Bill will be a great distress also to the laity. It will expose to desecration the churchyards which are dear to their tenderest affections; and it will also prevent consecration for the future of churchyards and portions of cemeteries. As to cemeteries, this Bill at once repeals the former Burials Acts which prescribe that
  1018
  certain portions of cemeteries should he consecrated by the Bishop for the burial of persons according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. This provision is abrogated in this Bill, and this abrogation will cause great distress and consternation. My Lords, at this time I am requested to consecrate several churchyards or cemeteries in my diocese. The great majority of the people of England love consecration of their churchyards and portions of the cemeteries. But if this Bill becomes law, how can a Bishop accept these invitations? Consecration is a religious act, by which the thing consecrated is separated from common uses and is given to Almighty God and to His honour and service. If this Bill is passed consecration will be a solemn mockery—a farce; how could a Bishop perform it? A third plea urged in favour of this measure is that it is grounded on the principle of religiouse quality. "Religiousequality." These are specious words; but let us consider, my Lords, what they involve. If no civil distinctions are henceforth to attach to any body of men by reason of their religious profession, then we must be prepared for other more sweeping changos in Church and State. If this principle of "religious equality" is to be accepted, if all ministers and all members of all denominations are to be on a par, it requires little foresight to perceive that one of the next questions that will be asked will be, Why are the Bishops of the Church of England to be allowed to retain their seats in your Lordships' House? Or, Why are not Roman Catholic Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops, and the ministers of other denominations to be admitted to it on equal terms with the English Episcopate Why is the most rev. Prelate to have the exclusive privilege of crowning the English Sovereign? And why is the English Crown itself to be limited to a Protestant succession? My Lords, this Bill is a Burials Bill; and I venture to predict that if it becomes law it will be an Act for the burial of the Church of England herself—not, indeed, as a Church, but as a national establishment of religion. The Church of England, as a Church, will survive, if she is true to herself, for she has the Divine presence with her, and a Divine promise of continuance; but, my Lords, I tremble to think of the civil and social consequences of her disestablish-

  1019
  ment. I believe, my Lords that there are such sins as sacrilege which robs God, and a profaneness which desecrates holy things, and they are often punished even in this world. Whatever may be the intentions of the framers of this Bill, for whom I entertain great respect, it will, I fear, lead to sacrilege and profaneness. It altogether nullifies consecration. It takes away "God's acre," and will expose it to the inroads of profaneness, and even of blasphemy. Let me appeal to the experience of England in the middle of the 17th century. The testimony of one of the greatest of the Predecessors of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Clarendon) in the 10th book of his History of the Great Rebellion, is clear on this point. When the principle of religious equality was proclaimed in this country in 1646, and the churchyards and churches of England were thrown open to all religionists calling themselves Christian, as is proposed by the present Bill, there was scarcely any form, he says, of heresy or blasphemy that was not heard in their sacred precincts. And what, my Lords, if this Bill becomes law, is to prevent the precincts of the Abbey Church of Westminster in your immediate neighbourhood, and every churchyard in England, from becoming the scene of the pompous pageantry of the Romish ceremonial at the burial of the dead? One word more, my Lords, and I have done. A similar measure to the present was passed in the year 1868 for the Church of Ireland. I have been assured by the Primate of Ireland and Bishop of Derry that it has been of no use at all in that country; and, my Lords, let us remember that it was followed in the next year by the Disestablishment of that Church, which was the most loyal body in that Kingdom. It was hoped that those measures would produce peace; but what, my Lords, have been their results? They have discouraged loyalty, and have encouraged agitation. We are now asked in this Bill to embark on a similar course in England, and I greatly fear that this course will be attended with similar results. I may not live to see them; but others, I fear, will. Some among us have sown the wind in Ireland by Disestablishment, and are now reaping the whirlwind in Home Rule, Tenant Eight, and agrarian agitation. My Lords, I apologize to your Lordships
  1020
  for trespassing on your time. I thank you for your indulgence. I have liberated my own conscience, and I earnestly pray you not to assent to this Bill.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion (this day three months.")—(The Bishop of Lincoln.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should not have risen now were it not that I fear the voice of my right rev. Brother—a man so deeply respected not only in England, but throughout the Christian Church—might be supposed adequately to represent the whole feeling of the Bench on which he and I sit. No one can have a greater respect for the right rev. Prelate than I have; his simple earnestness and his determination to adhere to his principles are worthy of all praise; but I may be allowed to doubt whether on some occasions it has not been found that another mode of pressing the principles of the Church of England may have been more beneficial to the Church than that which he has adopted. We have heard from my right rev. Brother that he considers that the Church of England, if this Bill passes, will be exposed to martyrdom. He did not say what was to be the exact form in which we were to suffer martyrdom; but I think that in those ages of the Church with which he is so familiar, and with which his name is so greatly associated, martyrdom was understood in some other sense than that which he has brought before your Lordships' notice to-day. He stated that if the Bill passed it would dig the grave of the Established Church of England, and he pointed to an astonishing connection between the Acts of 1868 and 1869 as affecting the Irish Established Church. No doubt, one Act followed the other; but I think your Lordships will require more proof than he gave that the one was the cause of the other. The Burial Act of 1868 was only one of a series of Acts which had long before introduced into Ireland the very principle which it is now sought to introduce into England. Therefore, I cannot believe that the slight alteration which was made in the then existing Acts as to burial in Ireland in 1868 had anything to do with the lamentable events, as I still consider them, which followed in 1869. I was sorry to hear my right rev. Brother say that this Bill

  1021
  proposed what would be a dishonour to Almighty God. No doubt, the -words were not his own; but he quoted a resolution which appeal's to have been passed in the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury since I left the chair about half or three-quarters of an hour before your Lordships met hero this evening. He quoted these words, I understand, as representing the feelings of the parochial clergy; and it might have been inferred that they represented the views of some legally constituted body in the Church of England. But the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury consists of two Houses, one of which is at present in your Lordships' House, and had begun to assemble here before the resolution he quoted was passed. No expression of opinion of a particular body belonging to that Convocation can be supposed to represent Convocation itself; it consists of two Houses, and it can perform no act except with the consent of both Houses, and no binding act without having been called to enter on its proceedings by Letters of Business from the Crown. But it is rather of the words used than of the persons using them that I wish to speak. What is that which is to be dishonouring to Almighty God '? At the present moment these churchyards are used for the burial of all Her Majesty's subjects. All persons, even those wafted on our shores from shipwrecked vessels, are buried in these churchyards. In many cases we require that persons shall be buried in silence, because the laws of the Church of England prohibit the use of our Service over their remains; but yet they are interred in the consecrated ground, and is it to be supposed to be a dishonour to Almighty God that, over the grave of one who is at present buried in silence, someone may offer a Christian prayer or read a portion of the Word of God? Does that constitute a dishonour to Almighty God any more than burying the dead in consecrated ground without any words of Christian hope or consolation? I cannot believe that my right rev. Brother really thinks that this uttering of a few words of Christian prayer by any relative or friend, or by any individual appointed by the relatives, or the reading of portions of Scripture, will be dishonouring to God. I believe his mind was so occupied with what he supposes to be the inevitable consequences
  1022
  of the passing of the Bill that he forgot to consider what the measure itself is. It might be objected that many of his arguments were directed, not against this measure, but against the measure in the form in which he supposes it will return to your Lordships about the 12th of August. I have nothing to do with what the Bill may become at some future stage; what I have to do with is the form in which it is before your Lordships now7. I venture to say it is, in substance, what your Lordships sanctioned by your vote three years ago; and I cannot believe that at the time it was so sanctioned it was supposed to involve all those dangerous consequences of which my right rev. Brother has now spoken. Is it a desecration of the churchyard that the Word of God should be read in it, and that Christian prayer should be offered in it, unless that Christian prayer and that reading of the Word of God proceed from the mouth of an ordained clergyman? I cannot believe that this is the opinion of your Lordships, and I cannot believe that such is the general opinion of the clergy and laity of the Church of England. I have examined the consecration deeds in the diocese of London, and I do not find in any one the statement that such a reading and such an offering up of prayer would be a departure from the purpose for which the ground was set apart. The deeds vary according to the nature of the place to be consecrated; but every one sets forth that it shall be set apart for the burial of the dead—that is, set apart from all profane and common uses. Your Lordships know what is the case in other countries. I have recently returned from the South of France, where Ultramontane Romanism is perhaps as powerful as it is in any part of that country; and I observed that in the yards of the parish churches I visited Protestants and Catholics were buried side by side. I cannot believe the Ultramontane Romanists of that region considered there was any desecration of those God's acres by Protestants being placed there; neither can I see there is any such desecration in the measure now proposed. It is said in some quarters that there is brought into this Bill a subject which has nothing to do with it—namely, the relief of the clergy from certain difficulties under which they at

  1023
  present labour. I should wish to state what is the principle of the Bill so far as I understand it. It is to allow the burial with religious rites of persons who at present suffer under the grievance of being prevented from being buried with those religious rites. The diocese of Lincoln is a happy diocese in many respects besides that of being presided over by its present Bishop. It is a diocese, it appears, in which there is no such thing as Dissent, excepting in the most religious form. Yet I have heard rumours of some sort of dissensions between some of the religious bodies and my right rev. Brother. Though I grant that they all revere and respect his deeply religious character, I am not sure that they are not drawn to him a good deal by this—that his form of the Church of England is more or less of the same type as their own form of religion, somewhat narrow—and that he has never perfectly mastered what I conceive to be the glory of the Church of England, that it is a National Church, wide as the nation, ready to embrace all in the nation who are anxious to join it, and not making narrow sectarian distinctions between those who adhere very rigidly to one or another set of opinions. There are other dioceses in which, unless I am greatly mistaken, the Baptist denomination very largely exists, and I believe it is a fact that in numerous cases in those dioceses persons are desirous to be buried by the clergyman of the parish, which is prevented by the present state of the law; and an integral part of this Bill will afford them the opportunity which they desire. One would suppose that there was no object in this Bill but to satisfy the Liberation Society. I am not here to say what were the motives for introducing the Bill; but I may state some of the reasons why I supported a similar proposal three years ago. One reason which weighed greatly with me was that I thought a large number of Dissenters were anxious to have some religious service read over their dead, and this Bill relieves them from that difficulty. It is urged as an objection incidentally that it relieves the clergy from difficulties they labour under in other matters as to the burial of certain persons whose case was brought before your Lordships' House in a Petition signed by 4,000 clergy, now many years ago, and pro-
  1024
  voted a very memorable and important debate. Another objection comes from another quarter; that it recognizes the Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York. My Lords, these bodies are constitutional; they are known to the Constitution when they act in their regular way. Her Majesty's late Advisers, following the example of their Predecessors, issued "Letters of Business" to the two Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York, commanding them to take into consideration this among other subjects, and the result of their deliberations was to recommend certain modes of dealing with the Burial Service which are embodied in this Bill. I have yet to learn that there is anything irregular in thus, by the authority of Her Majesty, in the most constitutional way, commanding these Assemblies to consider the subject. I have yet to learn that there is anything irregular in listening to the answer which, at your request and the command of Her Majesty, they made. You may criticize the answer, and if you do not like parts of it you are quite free to introduce modifications; but to object generally to the mention of these bodies when, according to the principles of the Constitution, both the late and the previous Governments advised Her Majesty to take their opinion on this subject, seems an objection to the Bill which is altogether untenable. I am quite aware, as the right rev. Prelate pointed out, that there are many persons clamouring for this measure who will not be satisfied by it. But I think it is a dangerous principle not to give men what is right because there are some unreasonable persons who demand more. It is my belief that in conceding what is felt to be right by men who are steadfast members of the Church of England you strengthen the position of the Church. I believe fully that there are many persons now clamouring for this measure who desire nothing less than the destruction of the Church of England. But I am not prepared, because they so clamour, to refuse to carry a measure which I believe will really strengthen the position you occupy when these attacks are made. What we wish is to recall the Dissenting bodies to that better mind which they showed in former times. Many of them may be embittered against us by narrow sectarian ani-

  1025
  mosities; we desire to show them a more excellent way. We act with their members in works of charity. We rejoice to know that the Roman Catholic Bishop in Dublin acts in cordial harmony with my respected friend the Archbishop of Dublin in the distribution of charitable funds. We act with them in the dissemination of the Scriptures. We are acting with them at this moment in preparing a new translation of the Scriptures, and that under the auspices of both Houses of Convocation. We act with them in this way—that while they avail themselves of our learning, we avail ourselves of theirs. We have not forgotten that the Church of England owes a good deal to the learning of Lardner, though he was a Dissenter of an advanced type. We use their hymns, and they use our prayers. These are modes in which men may be made to feel that with all their differences they are Christian brethren; and, if they are Christian brethren, is it for a moment to be endured that we shall regard the offering up of prayer and the reading of Scripture in their presence as a desecration? My Lords, we live in dangerous times. Systems are abroad, both here and on the Continent, which threaten both social and family life. Christians who revere one common Lord and who are united in one common love to Him cannot afford to be aggravating their differences, and that in the most unpleasant of all ways, by keeping them alive in the hour of death and in the graveyard. If this Bill does nothing else, it will convince our Nonconformist brethren—however violent may be the attempts to displace us from that which is our rightful inheritance—believing as we do that great blessings are secured to this nation by the system of faith and worship we maintain—that we do regard them as brethren, and desire to unite with them in the name of the religion we in common profess, and join hand in hand with them in resisting those who are opposed to our social system and family life. For these reasons, my Lords, I feel it my duty to support the second reading of this Bill.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I agree with much that has been said by the right rev. Prelate and the most rev. Primate who have just spoken, and will not depart from the tone which has been adopted by them in discussing a painful
  1026
  question. Prom the speech by which the Bill was introduced one would imagine that the question is very simple and easy, and that hardly any opposition could be expected to it at any stage. Yet it has now been before the public for nearly 20 years, and during that time it has never, among the different Governments that have existed, been made a Government measure till now. I cannot but remember when a Bill of this kind was first introduced by Sir Morton Peto, weighted with the affecting incident of his daughter's death and the circumstance that the religious service of the Church of England could not legally be read over the body in a churchyard which he had himself given. Sir George Lewis, then Home Secretary, opposed it on behalf of the Liberal Government, and assisted in the rejection of the Bill. That Bill I take as the type of the different Bills subsequently brought forward, and it was viewed with distrust not only by Conservatives but by Liberals also. It was not for a considerable period—I do not remember the exact time—that the present Prime Minister began to be influenced. But it must be remembered that when he was so, he added to his adhesion such strong recommendations in the Committee of which he was a Member that the Committee were not prepared to go with him in all the safeguards he would introduce. In the history which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack gave of the matter, he left out the circumstance that a Bill of this kind has not originally been opposed as a Party question or made a Party question of. It has been opposed, as, indeed, the abolition of Church rates was, by men of all Parties. A very distinguished Member of the Liberal Party told me that though he had always opposed the latter measure, yet, when the time came that it became a Party question, he felt bound to go with his Party and support it. I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack that we ought to terminate controversies when we can. If you can come to an issue which will terminate the controversy altogether, if you can come to a settlement without sacrificing principle, I think that you ought to do so. But does any one of your Lordships imagine that by this Bill you are about to terminate a controversy, that a definite issue

  1027
  is contained in the Bill, and that we have before us what is a settlement of the controversy? Strongly as I feel, I should not hesitate to surrender much if I thought that a settlement would be the result of this Bill. It is because I believe this would be no end of the controversy, that the compromise offered by such a Bill is one that would not be accepted on either side, that, looking at the principles contained in the measure, I have come to the conclusion to give my support to the right rev. Prelate who has moved the rejection of the Bill, and to thank him for taking the part he has. The civil right of burial in the churchyards no one is called upon to contest. But those who hold the churchyards hold them for ecclesiastical purposes. The old churchyards and the new churchyards have received a distinct consecration to ecclesiastical uses and religious purposes with which the National Church is associated. I want to know in what respect religious liberty is infringed by the present condition of things? The liberty is absolute except in one defined locality. With respect to the unbap-tized, Churchmen are on precisely the same footing as Nonconformists. If from any circumstance their children should die unbaptized, then Churchmen are liable to the same restriction as to the service in the churchyard as the Dissenters. And what is the grievance put forward with regard to others? The most rev. Prelate told your Lordships that in Prance he saw Protestants and Roman Catholics lying buried side by side in Roman Catholic churchyards. But he did not tell us whether the Protestants so buried were buried with their own service or with any. He told us, indeed, that Protestants lay side by side with Roman Catholics. So do Nonconformists lie side by side with Churchmen in our churchyards, without any allegation on the part of Churchmen that the churchyards are desecrated. I saw a statement by a Member of the other House that we treat Dissenters as if they were "common and unclean," and that we keep them out of the churchyards. That has never been the case. The clergy bury those who are brought to them with the rites and services of the Church of England. And now what do you propose to do? Baptists were the aggrieved in the early discussion. They, no doubt, are in great numbers in many
  1028
  parts of England; but I think that in most cases they have provided themselves with burial places. It is so in parts of the country which I know, and I have never heard there has been any complaint or that any person has been excluded from the churclryard. I have never heard any instance where, with the exception of some unbaptized persons, whom by the laws of the Church the clergymen were unable to bury—I say I have never heard of any instance in which an impediment was thrown in the way of burial according to the rites of the Church of England. But when you speak of Dissenters, you must remember that all Dissenters are by no means Nonconformists. In former days there was what was called "occasional conformity," and many members of the Church of England—unwisely, I think—desired to put an end to that conformity. Putting aside the Baptists, I think among the rest of the Dissenters there is a great attachment, or at least no repugnance, to the services of the Church of England. Many of them are married in church. Some 75 per cent of the marriages which take place in this country are celebrated according to the rites of the Church of England; and you would not, if you believe what is said of the proportions of the different religious bodies, have so large a number if many marriages of Dissenters were not included. The Church of England, be it remembered, has been intrusted with the custody, not of graveyards, but of churchyards. They lie around the church; the residence of the clergyman is close by, not unfrequently his windows looking over the sacred spot; and these are circumstances which show that they are places where the rites of the Church of England are to be celebrated. This is the first instance of "concurrent endowment of every kind of creed." It is an instance of handing over the property of one religious body to the use of another for religious purposes. I was always somewhat surprised when those who make a great parade of taking no assistance from the State accepted the rates for chapels for the religious rites of their burial service. But now you propose to take from the exclusive use of the Church not only the old churchyards, but the new churchyards given within recent times and dedicated to ecclesiastical uses. I myself have given

  1029
  land which I never 'would, have given in conjunction with the churchyard if I had known that it was to be devoted to different purposes from what I intended. For a cemetery I would have given it with the greatest pleasure possible. But, having added it to the churchyard, I feel it would be a wrong to have it taken away and dedicated to different purposes from what was intended. I think I have a right to complain that this Bill touches not only the old churchyards, which I think is wrong, but the new churchyards, which those who gave had a right to expect would not be diverted to other uses. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said those who gave land for public use in that way must take the consequences. I want to know whether Churchmen in this country are to be the only body of religionists who are to be unable to dedicate anything in safety for the purposes of their religion? [Cheers.] I must protest against such an assumption. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said they had had notice by that Bill having been introduced years ago. Was it to be supposed that a Bill which has been rejected by the House of Commons on many occasions, and which in its earlier stages was constantly rejected with the assent of the Liberal Government and the Liberal Party, was a notice that the gifts which donors made to the Church of England would be diverted from the uses for which they were given? There are, besides, many living donors who gave before the question was stirred. A great deal has been said with respect to an admitted grievance of the Nonconformists. What Mr. Ridley said on that point has been referred to. Now, the grievance which Mr. Ridley admitted was that of being compelled to have the Burial Service performed; and that grievance was provided for by the Bill brought in by the late Government in 1877, because that Bill enabled Nonconformists to have a silent burial. Silent burial was probably the kind of burial which those Protestants in France to whom the most rev. Prelate had alluded had received. Silent burial was a practice in harmony with the usages of the Presbyterians, and certainly with those of the Puritans, who had a certain repugnance to the saying of prayers over the dead, as tending in their view towards superstition, For myself, I should think
  1030
  it a most unreasonable thing to demand, if I were in a Roman Catholic country, where there was a Roman Catholic graveyard and a Roman Catholic chaplain, that I should be allowed to introduce there the prayers and services of my religion, which would probably excite a great deal of feeling; and I should wish to be laid there with the prayers and the tears and the kindly feelings of my friends outside, so long as I found a serene resting place, without thinking that any wrong had been done to me. The noble and learned Lord said that many of the Nonconformists wished to come to the churchyards in order that they might lie there with their deceased relatives. That, my Lords, is a sentiment which I respect and which I should desire to encourage. But, I ask, how many people are now enabled to lie with their relatives? How many persons can secure that privilege? When that very natural sentiment was invoked in the closing of Metropolitan and other burial grounds it was, on sanitary grounds, swept aside, and graveyards and the vaults within them were, closed; and I know, when I was at the Home Office, how pathetic were the entreaties on that subject, which on many occasions could not be assented to on account of the law. Then, is it unreasonable for us to ask that, if persons wish to lie with their deceased relatives, they should come into the churchyard by the same gate and with the same key as those relatives did by accepting the services of the Church of England? Curiously enough, the noble and learned Lord quoted a passage, I think from Mr. Plunket, in which he compared the advantages of mixed education with those of mixed religious services in graveyards. He said that the education of persons of mixed creeds together was valuable as tending to get rid of the acrimony which exists between those who belong to different sects. But how is it that they obtain that joint and mixed education? By ignoring religion, by putting it out of the way. Every man sinks his own distinctive religion, and so you come to have a shadowy kind of religion in which everybody is supposed to agree. It is to be just the reverse under this Bill. How are you to have harmony and peace in the churchyards if every one of the 150 sects in this country are to introduce their own services there?—a thing which

  1031
  would be most unjust to the clergy, and which, would also be greatly felt by the laity. With regard to the relief which should be given to the clergy, I am most desirous that they should be fairly relieved; but I cannot satisfy myself that the terms proposed in this Bill would attain that object. The clergy would still be left at the mercy of the relatives and friends of the deceased. I rejoice that Convocation should be recognized; but in this measure the Convocation of the Province of York is, to some extent, overlooked. The most rev. Prelate seemed to complain of the right rev. Prelate, because he had alluded to a resolution of the Lower House of Convocation. No doubt, a Resolution of the House of Commons could not be called the voice of the whole Parliament, so a resolution of the Lower House of Convocation could not be called the voice of Convocation. But the right rev. Prelate had fairly spoken, of the resolution in question, not as one of all Convocation, but of those who represented the feeling of the parochial clergy. My Lords, I hope that while you leave the National Church in her position you will not consent to sap and mine that position. I do not see why those who have freely gone out from her, who have not been expelled from her pale but have gone to seek what they deem a higher and better form of worship, as they have found their own chapels, should not also find their own graveyards. If they object to the Church of England services, I am quite ready to concede to them silent burial in her graveyards; but I trust, my Lords, that you will not, by this mode of mixing up different forms of religion, throw discredit upon all religion whatsoever.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved, that the right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment said that it was for the clergy to bear the brunt of the battle; but he (the Earl of Kimberley) denied altogether that there was any great battle to be fought upon this occasion. No one denied that Nonconformists had a right to be buried in the churchyards; and the question raised by this Bill was not whether they should be given an additional right, but whether they should continue to attach to their existing right a condition of which they justly complained. The noble Viscount who had just sat down urged that this measure
  1032
  would not terminate the controversy and the antagonism which had prevailed for centuries between Dissenters and Churchmen. Hardly any of their Lordships could be sanguine enough to expect that the Bill would do that. All that was proposed by the measure was to terminate one particular controversy between Dissenters and Churchmen. Had the noble Viscount entirely forgotten that the churchyards were not always the property of the Church? Were they not once in the hands of the Roman Catholics, and had they not been turned from their original purposes? Could it really be argued that Christians were not to be at liberty to be buried in our churchyards and to have performed over them such religious service as this Bill would require? He did not think so low of the clergy as to believe they imagined that the fate of a great Church depended on a question of this kind. This was not a matter brought forward for the first time. The House came to a conclusion by a not inconsiderable majority that precisely that which was recommended by this Bill should be adopted; and with some confidence he now expressed the hope that their Lordships would not recede from that position. The Bill which he held in his hand was, he thought, one which did not go in the least beyond what the necessity of the case required. It imposed upon clergymen what he should have thought a small obligation—namely, that of allowing a religious service of some kind to be performed. Nonconformists ought to be allowed to use the churchyards as resting-places without the humiliating conditions imposed by the present law. It had been said that this was a preliminary to the disestablishment of the Church of England. Well, of course, every measure of this kind was so described. The only answer that could be given was the old answer, that if the Church of England stood in need of such a provision as that Noncomformists should not be allowed to use their religious service upon the interment of their relatives in churchyards the Church of England must be very weak indeed. He did not take that view of the case, for he believed that a very large number of the laity and clergy of the Church of England and many in their Lordships' House were of opinion that this was a wise and well-considered measure for

  1033
  the purpose of putting an end to a controversy which, although it was not on great matters, embittered very much indeed those differences between the various denominations in this country which all must deplore, and which he believed this Bill was calculated to diminish. Therefore, he hoped the House would give it serious consideration and allow it to be read a second time.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSsaid, he rose to say that he should vote against the second reading of the Bill; but he would do so with some reluctance, as he would act against the opinion of the most rev. Prelate, and he was unwilling to appear to act against the wishes of some of his fellow-Christians in not granting them what they seemed to desire. But he had given the Bill a good deal of consideration, and he had formed a very decided and distinct opinion that it was unjust to the Church of England, and that the consequences to her might be very serious. They were as yet undeveloped, and one could not tell what they might be. Therefore, he thought it his duty to state his reasons for objecting to the Bill. He should like, in the first instance, to say a word as to the argument, if it were founded on truth, which had just been brought forward, that all Englishmen had a common law right to the use of our churchyards, and that you could not prevent them enjoying it by a religious condition incompatible with those great principles of civil and religious liberty which had happily prevailed in this country for many years. If it were true that at any former period Englishmen had a civil right to the use of our churchyards, apart from the use of the Church Service, then the argument would be incontrovertible. But, as far as he understood, that was not the case. There never was a time when the right to interment pure and simple existed at all. He believed it was looked upon as a religious right—the right to be buried with the rites of the Church in the parish churchyard. In the eye of the law all Englishmen were members of the Church of England, and he therefore believed the right was a religious right. There would be nothing contrary to civil and religious liberty in voting against the Bill. Suppose it was allowed to clergymen to enter the chapels of the country and to preach
  1034
  doctrines which Dissenters disapproved of, that would be a violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty; but for many centuries the churchyards had been used by the Church ministers only, and it would be a distinct grievance to them to allow these churchyards to be used by Dissenters. He desired to respect the religious opinions of every class of fellow-Christians, and he thought it was not too much to ask that the feelings and rights of members of the Church of England should be respected likewise. If the right of performing any service other than that of the Church of England were conceded as far as the churchyard was concerned, it would be difficult, logically, to resist the exercise of the same right in the church itself? If a person had a right to object to his right of burial in the churchyard being clogged by the condition of the performance of the Burial Service of the Church of England, would he not have an equal right to object to his right to a seat in the church itself being clogged by the condition of hearing services which he disapproved? Turning to some of the objections to the Bill, he would refer, in the first place, to that which related to monumental inscriptions in the churches. Under the existing state of the law, these inscriptions were subject to the approval of the clergyman and of the Bishop of the diocese; but if the necessity for that approval were abolished, it was difficult to see how such inscriptions could be subject to efficient and proper regulation. They had heard lately of halfpenny postcards being made the instruments by which libellous matter was disseminated, and it was not impossible that, if the present restrictions were removed, tombstones might be made use of for the same purpose. In order to show that this objection was not an imaginary one, he begged leave to refer to a case in which a married man having died, his widow, supposing that the doctor who attended him during his illness had not treated him properly, that the nurse who had nursed him had neglected him, and that his brother had taken advantage of his death to deprive her of her property, and having obtained permission of the clergyman of the parish to erect a stone in memory of her husband in the parish churchyard, put up one bearing the following inscription:—

  1035
  "Neglected by his doctor,
  Cruel-treated by his nurse,
  His brother robbed his widow,
  Which made it all the worse."
  The unfortunate clergyman who had unsuspectingly authorized the erection of the stone was threatened with an action for libel, and the matter was brought into the Bishop's Court, and a faculty obtained for removing the stone. This case showed the necessity that existed for an adequate revision of inscriptions before they were allowed to be placed in the church. And then, too, with regard to doctrines. What difficulties would arise if the clergyman had to revise the doctrine on the tomb-stones, when he had no authority over the services at the grave. Another very formidable objection to the measure was that, in principle, it was altogether without precedent. During the last 200 years every law imposing religious disability upon any of Her Majesty's subjects had been swept away from the Statute Book, and perfect religious liberty was now enjoyed by all, and therefore Parliament should proceed cautiously when it was proposed to break into the legitimate boundaries of the Church. The last objection he had to urge against the measure was the extremely small number of persons to whom it would be of any benefit or to whom it would give any relief. The large towns had their cemeteries in which all could be buried with any form they chose, and therefore the operation of the Bill would be confined to agricultural parishes in which the greater proportion of the inhabitants were members of the Church of England. Of the small proportion who were Dissenters most had no objection to the Burial Service of the Church, and their Lordships would be astonished at the very small proportion of the Dissenters of Bath who preferred to be buried with the Dissenting form of service. The number was so small as to justify the application of the maxim—"De minimis non curat lex." He thought that a simple remedy might be found for the grievance—if any—which existed, by having national cemeteries throughout the country. The churchyard would then cease to be the area over which rival statesmen contended, and the place where the dead reposed to be the scene of polemical and political discussion.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he hoped he might not be deemed presumptuous if, having so recently taken his seat in their Lordships' House, he sought to express, as briefly and concisely as might be, opinions upon this important question which had been matured during a somewhat long apprenticeship in the other House of Parliament. He used the word "matured" advisedly, for he was free to confess that when this question first became the subject of Parliamentary discussion, it appeared to him under a somewhat different aspect from that which it bore to-day. In this respect, however, he imagined that he was in the same position as a great many other Churchmen. At first, they scarcely understood and appreciated the nature and extent of the grievance of which complaint was made—it had not appeared to them in a practical form in their own neighbourhood, and they were rather inclined to believe those who told them that this was only an attack by the enemies of the Church upon one of her outposts, and that the grievance was exaggerated by those who wished to advance under its shelter their covert designs to overthrow the Establishment. A fuller and closer consideration had convinced him, as he thought it had convinced many other Churchmen, that they were mistaken in their first conclusions—the grievance did exist, and it demanded a remedy. And he would venture to point out two things to their Lordships which he thought the friends of the Church of England ought clearly to recognize and understand. The first was this—that if, indeed, there were those who desired to injure the Established Church, and who were ready to take up such questions as the present with that intent, there were also a vast number of Nonconformists who had no such desire, but who were content to live side by side with Churchmen, discharging their social and religious duties without any such feeling of hostility towards the Church; there were, moreover, certainly in the agricultural districts of the South of England, and probably elsewhere, large numbers of people who attended at different times both Church and Chapel, who thought that one was nearly as good as the other, and who, if they did not come up to the standard of orthodoxy which might be desired, could hardly be called enemies or even oppo-

  1037
  Dents of the Establishment. He ventured to think that nothing could be more unwise or undesirable on the part of Churchmen than to drive these people into the arms of the enemies of the Established Church, thus giving to the latter the great vantage ground of a tangible grievance, and placing the Church and her ministers in an invidious light before the eyes of the people. Their aim, he thought, should be the very reverse, and where a grievance had been found to exist it should be their wisdom to remove it. The other point which he wished to urge upon their Lordships was with respect to the character of the alleged grievance. The right rev. Prelate who had moved the rejection of the Bill had spoken of it as a grievance of no substantial character, and many persons appeared to think that they had satisfactorily disposed of the whole matter when they called it a "sentimental grievance." He (Lord Bra-bourne) wished to point out the grave mistake and the fallacy contained in such an argument. What was a sentimental grievance? It was something which appealed to the heart rather than to the understanding. In other words, it was something which men felt without waiting to reason it out, and when we had to deal with such a grievance, we might argue with cold and calm logic as long as we pleased to prove that it did not exist, or was at best unreal and intangible; but, practically, it was more real and tangible and more difficult to encounter than any other grievance whatever. There was one expression which had fallen from the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) to which he desired to take exception at once. He said that this Bill was "the first attempt to take the property of one denomination and give it to another." He (Lord Brabourne) protested against the idea of calling the Church of England a denomination. This it was that underlaid the whole question. The Church of England was the National Church, and it was from that point of view that he supported the Bill. With regard to the legal part of the question, he did not desire to trespass upon their Lordships, inasmuch as it had been exhaustively dealt with in the speech of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack who introduced the Bill. But, inasmuch as there were many clergy-
  1038
  men who expressed a desire for disestablishment rather than give way to this Bill, he would venture to remark that if disestablishment took place tomorrow, these clergymen would, receive no relief whatever, for the legal status of the Nonconformist would be unaffected, and, in all probability, his right to burial in the parish churchyard, without interference of the clergy, would be more firmly established than ever. But, speaking of legal questions, he (Lord Brabourne) was anxious to call attention to a document published in 1879, and again reproduced within the last few days, bearing the signatures of many noblemen and gentlemen, who said that they had within the last 35 years been donors of lands for the formation of new or addition to old churchyards, and protesting against the perversion of their objects which would be effected by this Bill. It would ill-become him to say a word that could be construed as disrespectful of those most estimable persons, all of whom, both in their original gift and their subsequent protest, had doubtless been actuated by the best and highest motives. But he must venture to say of that protest, that it was a most ill-omened document for the Church of England, if, indeed, any weight whatever was to be attached to it. For what did we mean when we spoke of the Church as a National Church? We meant that she was the Church of the nation, allied and united to the State, and she must accept all the consequences of such a position. It might be an advantage or a disadvantage; but so long as the union of Church and State continued the Church must be subject to the laws passed by Parliament in the name of the nation, and ratified by the consent of the Sovereign. And for persons who had given property to the Church as a National Institution, afterwards to claim in any way to control the management or direction of that property which had become national property, and was subject, like all other national property, to the laws which regulated that property, was a claim utterly preposterous in itself, and which struck a direct blow at the nationality of the Church. In addressing their Lordships upon this question, he (Lord Brabourne) was not so much in a difficulty to find arguments as to avoid repeating those which their Lordships had heard

  1039
  again and again. The right rev. Prelate had told them that if they passed this Bill it would satisfy nobody, but would be used as a stepping stone for further attacks upon the Church. Something else would follow—something worse would be entailed upon them. But this was the argument which had been used against every change, every reform, every improvement since the creation of the world. It was the old argument of the fortress which had to be defended; and with regard to every outwork there would always be some who would say that its abandonment would give the enemy vantage ground for further attacks, whilst others would believe it better to concentrate the forces of the garrison within more defensible entrenchments. The argument was one useless for general application, and each particular case must be dealt with upon its own merits. It was for their Lordships to consider, not what might follow, or what some feared might follow, if they yielded to this demand; but whether the demand was in itself just and right, and, if so, they would not be wrong in granting it, and ought to be deterred by no vague apprehensions of the future. He (Lord Brabourne) had no right to speak—nor did he pretend to speak—as the champion of Nonconformists. He spoke as an English Churchman; and he said, emphatically, that it was for the best interests of the Church of England that the principle of this Bill should be accepted by their Lordships. If he thought the contrary—if he believed for one moment that the position of the Church would be weakened by this measure—he should hesitate long before he gave it his support. For, however great the grievance to Nonconformists, if the removal of that grievance entailed the infliction of an equal or a greater grievance upon others, it would be right to hesitate. But, for his part, he could not bring himself to believe that this would be the case, or that any evil would arise from this measure. He would ask who and what were the Dissenters for whom this Bill was to be passed? He would not answer in his own words, but in those of an eminent divine, who had lately received the recognition of his services by elevation to the Episcopal Bench. He (Lord Brabourne) held in his hand a pamphlet bearing the title Shall We
  1040
  Surrender? and written four years ago by one who was then known all over England as Canon Ryle. It was the case against the Bill, and it breathed throughout that bellicose spirit which they naturally expected to find in the sayings and writings of eminent theologians. The writer recommended Churchmen not to give up an inch of their line of defence, to fight out the Church's battle at once, and to offer an uncompromising resistance to Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill, or any similar measure. But before the lion had lashed himself into the temper which dictated these words, he was somewhat milder; and in the commencement of his pamphlet, after describing himself as an Evangelical Churchman, he gave a description also of Dissenters. He said—
  "I do not regard English Dissenters as Schismatics and Samaritans. I believe that the vast majority of English Dissenting chapels owe their existence to the disgraceful neglect and apathy of the Church of England."
  If those words were true—and no one who knew the history of his country could doubt their truth—if it was owing to our neglect and apathy, or rather, as he (Lord Brabourne) would put it, to the want of proper Church organization in time past, that so much Dissent prevailed among us, were we not doubly and trebly bound to treat every claim, every demand, every complaint of grievance on the part of Dissenters, not only with forbearance and consideration, but with the utmost tenderness? They heard much of the rights of the clergy and of the rights of Churchmen; but, for his part, he valued no right that was founded upon the wrongs of others. The days were past when in this free country an Established Church could exist upon the principle of privilege as regarded itself, and exclusion and prohibition towards others. If the Church was to endure and prosper as an Establishment, she must appeal more and more largely to national feelings; she must more and more conciliate to herself popular sympathies; she must open wider her portals, and endeavour to attract rather than repel those who were still outside. We were living in times when we had great occasion to seek for points of agreement rather than of difference among Christians, for never had we more need of the words of one of our beautiful prayers—"Grace seriously to lay to heart the

  1041
  great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions;" and all this time the enemies of our common Christianity were at work. No one who knew the University life of the present day, and the general life of English youth, could deny that scepticism and infidelity were actively at work. And these enemies of Christianity boldly lifted up their heads amongst us at the present time. They claimed places in our Senate—they challenged orthodoxy to combat—they openly derided the fundamental truths of Christianity. Surely this was no time to magnify the divisions among various bodies of Christians, or to weaken ourselves by internal dissensions in the very presence of the enemy; but rather to aim, by every means in our power, at Christian unity, There was one other argument which he wished to urge before he resumed his seat. They were at the beginning of a new Parliament. The country had recently passed through the ordeal of a General Election, and some of them had been surprised at the extreme opinions, political and religious, which had been avowed, and had found favour with some of the constituencies. If those opinions were to be successfully encountered and counteracted, it must not be by a policy of obstinate and dogged resistance to change, but by wise conciliation and prudence. It would be of ill omen for the future of this Parliament—of ill augury for the success of the work before them—if their Lordships, by their first division, rejected a Bill which was offered by Her Majesty's Government as a settlement of a question so important as the present. These were the only lines upon which the question could ultimately be settled, and they could not prevent that settlement. Every year, every month, every week they delayed it, they would increase the heartburnings and dissensions which attended such a question, and greatly magnify the difficulty of its settlement. For his part, he did not pretend to endorse all the details of the Bill; but, believing its principle to be right and just and its tendency to be towards that Christian unity which was so much to be desired, he cordially thanked the Government for having introduced it at so early a period, and to its second reading he gave his humble but hearty support.
  LORD HAWKE,who asked for indulgence in addressing their Lordships for the first time, was understood to insist
  1042
  on the parallel between this legislation and that which took place in the case of the Irish Church. He contended, from his own experience as a clergyman who had ministered in rural parishes, that there was nothing in the present system of burial which could fairly be said to outrage the feelings of Dissenters. The great majority of towns had public cemeteries, where the Dissenters were altogether spared the grievance of having the Burial Service of the Church of England read over the remains of their relatives. Even in the country parishes the Bill was neither needed nor required. In 30 years' ministry in Yorkshire and Lancashire he had not been called upon to officiate at the funeral of a Presbyterian, Socinian, Independent, or Unitarian, and only in one case at that of a Roman Catholic; and in the latter case he was told that if he omitted any portion of the service he should give great offence. The Wesleyan Methodists were, more or less, well-affected towards the Church and welcomed the clergy. The Wesleyan Methodist Prayer Book, indeed, was almost the counterpart of their own. The reading of the Church of England Service, therefore, could not be so great a grievance to the Dissenters. Knowing, as they did, that money was always forthcoming for the building of Dissenting chapels, could they think that they were so mean as to begrudge the few pounds which would be required in the few parishes where the present system was unsatisfactory. If this Bill were conceded, it would immediately be followed by further demands. Having given up the churchyards, they would next be required to give up the fabric of the Church. The Church and the churchyard were held on the same tenure, and, having relinquished one, they would soon be despoiled of the other. Then would come the total surrender of the property of the Church; and every parish would become a hot-bed of agitation, a prey to Dissent and religious animosity. The parochial sys-tern would be entirely destroyed, and the Church, torn limb from limb, would be handed over, a defenceless trunk, to the Liberation Society. Speaking, not on behalf of any extreme party, but of the great moderate party in the Church, of which the great bulk of the clergy were composed, he would say if their feelings were outraged by the passing of this Bill, the burden laid on their

  1043
  shoulders would become greater than they were able to bear, and the clergy, who had been so long opposed to disestablishment, would be its warmest advocates.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, although this Burials Question has been for several years before your Lordships' House, I have never spoken upon it; and as it seems now, happily, to be nearing a final settlement, I hope your Lordships will not think me obtrusive if, on this occasion, I occupy a few moments of your time. My Lords, I am bound to admit, in all candour and fairness, that I cannot go the full length of what I understand to be the argument on which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack rests his support of this measure. I have listened carefully to the controversy, and I cannot see that there has been made out any absolute and indefeasible right, such as is claimed on the part of every parishioner, to be buried in the parish churchyard with such services and ceremonies as his friends may prefer. That, I take it, is the contention on the Nonconformists' side. I know it is said to be a common-law right; but I fail to see how any such right can be established, remembering that, if it existed, it must have dated from a time when Nonconformity was regarded by the common law as an offence. But I do not care to argue a question like that, which seems to be one of speculation and theory. I am the less careful to argue it because, whatever may be put forward as the argument of those who support the Bill, yet, as I read the Bill itself, the claim which is advanced in theory is not put forward in practice. I can understand a claim that every man, be his opinions what they may, shall be buried with the service that his family or friends prefer. I can understand, on the other hand, the contention that no service except that of the Establishment shall be allowed. Both these opposite contentions rest on a basis of possible argument. But, if this is to be treated as a matter of common citizenship, and as a matter of right founded upon such citizenship, I confess that I cannot understand how freedom to use their own ceremonies can be conceded to Nonconformists, and, at the same time, refused to a Positivist, or a Freethinker, or a Jew. That looks to me like doing away with the religious test which you have got, and substituting a new one.
  1044
  It may not be a matter of much practical importance, because Jews and Positivists do not abound in the rural districts, and in the towns they have cemeteries open to them. But it throws a certain air of; unreality over the claim of right which is urged, when we find that that right is to be made subject in practice to a purely arbitrary limitation. But, my Lords, there is a good deal in this controversy beyond the question of right to which I have alluded, and which is really a very small part of the whole subject. There is the question of policy and national expediency, and it is from that point of view that I prefer to look at it. Nobody disputes that it is for the Legislature to make such regulations as it pleases on the subject of burials. There is no question of private property involved, nor of individual or private rights invaded. A churchyard is not the private possession of the clergyman; he cannot treat it as his own garden. What rights he has over it are vested in him only as a trustee for public purposes; and the whole question, therefore, what these public purposes shall be, is one for the Legislature to determine. My Lords, I lay stress on this distinction, perhaps from a rather personal reason. If it had seemed to me that a violation of individual rights was concerned, I could not justify the having held aloof from earlier attemps to deal with the question. But I do not see it so; and, while I thought a compromise possible, I was willing to wait. It is abundently clear, now, that no compromise is possible—every attempt at one has failed. We have to choose between this Bill and keeping things as they are; and the question is, which shall we choose? My Lords, I think we are bound to ask ourselves which solution is most to the general advantage of the public? We cannot satisfy all parties; but which party of the two will have the most cause for dissatisfaction if the verdict of Parliament goes against them? There is no doubt, I apprehend, that, in the present state of things, there is, to call it by no harsher term, considerable inconvenience and annoyance involved to the Nonconformist. He may or may not be wronged—that is open to dispute; but he undoubtedly suffers hardship. He cannot choose the place of burial for his parents or his children; he cannot, being mostly a poor man, bury them at a distance; he must have recourse to

  1045
  the parish, graveyard, at least, in a rural district; and he is, therefore, precluded from the use of his own services and the attendance of his own minister. You have there a real, tangible, substantial grievance. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) asks why Dissenters cannot set up graveyards of their own? In populous places they can do so; but a large proportion of the Nonconformists are scattered over rural districts, one or two families, perhaps, in a parish. They mostiy belong to the poorer class, and to tell them to set up graveyards for themseves is really to mock them. Now, what is there on the other side? My Lords, what removes any possible scruple on my part about making this change is that, looking at the matter in every light, I fail utterly to see how the clergy or their supporters are injured by it. What are the ways in which a class can be injuriously affected? Mainly three: you may destroy or lessen their influence; you may alter their social position, so far as it depends on the offices they fill; or you may take away their official incomes. Now, in this case, the money question is not raised at all, inasmuch as ample security is given that the clergy shall not lose in that respect. Can it be argued that, if this Bill passes, their influence over their congregations or their social status will be in any way diminished? My Lords, there is something ludicrous in the very idea that they gain in importance or in influence by having imposed upon them the duty of burying persons whose families would rather employ somebody else for the purpose. It cannot be an agreeable office under the circumstances. It is not an office which confers any social dignity; and, in fact, it is not a monopoly of the right of burial which they lose—they have not got it now; for if a Nonconformist family can find or make a burial ground of their own across the way, they may have their own minister and their own service there. My Lords, when you look at the matter from the point of view of what the clergy lose by this Bill, it is really not easy to understand how so small a matter should have created so strong a feeling. My Lords, I have heard it argued that the clergy will feel, if this Bill passes, and if Nonconformists are allowed to officiate in consecrated ground, that there is a kind of recognition of the Nonconformist minister by the Church, which they cannot
  1046
  conscientiously acquiesce in. My answer is, that they are not asked to acquiesce in it. The matter is taken out of their hands. In whatever sense this Bill may be said to recognize Nonconformity it is the State that does so, and not the Church. The incumbent is not asked to take any step in common with the Nonconformist. He is simply directed in certain cases to step aside and let the Nonconformist act in his place. I do not see how a man's conscience can be offended where no action is required of him but a simple absence of interference with the action of another person. But, then, the laity belonging to the Established Church, are they in any way injured? That is even more difficult to show. If a rule existed at present that no person not a Churchman should be be buried in the parish churchyard, I could understand some people disliking its relaxation. I need not say that I should have no sympathy with any such feeling; but its existence would be intelligible. But there is no such exclusion now. Any Nonconformist, any Freethinker, however public his opinions may be, can be deposited in the parish churchyard now, side by side with the orthodox, and nobody objects. Only it must be the parson of the parish who presides over the ceremony of putting him there. The remains of the historian Gibbon, to take one celebrated instance, rest in a Sussex churchyard, and nobody finds fault. If non - Churchmen are buried side by side with Churchman, how can it be a shock to anyone's feelings that they should be put where they lie by persons of their own opinions? I could understand the hard, harsh, intolerant rule, which says—"This is consecrated ground; let none but the faithful be interred here." But I do not follow the reasoning, which says—"This is consecrated ground; it is not profaned by the interment of a non-believer, whoever he may be, or of an immoral and disreputable person; but it is profaned if any except the authorized minister utters a prayer or delivers an address." That does not seem consistent. Yet it is only on that plea that you can at once approve the present practice and reject the change which this Bill makes. My Lords, there is one objection to this measure which long weighed with me, which, I think, has more reality in it and deserves to be treated more seriously than those I have referred to. It is the

  1047
  fear that the precedent set as to churchyards will be extended to churches also. My Lords, I say sincerely that I should think such opening of parish churches to all sects an act of injustice in itself, and a most impolitic proceeding. Even in the extreme case of a severance between Church and State, I hold that places of worship should remain in the hands of those to whom they now belong. They are reserved in Ireland by the Act which disestablished the Church there, and they ought to be so here if ever we are in the same position. But I think that a distinction between the church and the churchyard is easy to draw. In the first place, most parish churches have been re-built or restored in late years by those who worship in them, and the number being restored and re-built is increasing every year. There are no funds for these purposes except the voluntary contributions of those who belong to them, and that circumstance alone would be sufficient to create a strong claim to exclusive possession; but it cannot be contended that anything like the same cost has been incurred in keeping up the churchyards. In the next place, Nonconformist funerals in churchyards will not constitute any practical interference with the use of the place by the habitual worshippers. They will occur seldom, and generally, I suppose, on week days. But Nonconformist services in churches would be a serious interference with the habitual congregation. And, lastly, there is a sort of feeling which, perhaps, it is not easy to reason upon, which connects itself with a building habitually used for solemn purposes, and which does not equally exist in connection with a mere open space. But, my Lords, I will put the matter in this way. Suppose, which I believe is not the case, that Nonconformists in general desire the use of the churches, they will employ their Parliamentary power to get it. But, will they employ it less if this Bill does not pass? I do not think you ought to be withheld from granting what you think reasonable in itself merely because you suppose that some of those who ask it will ask for what is not reasonable at a later stage. Is it not a gain from, your point of view, that nine-tenths of those who now complain will be silenced by what it is now proposed to give them? The remaining tenth will not be very formidable, and you may fairly leave them alone. So with that larger ques-
  1048
  tion of disestablishment and disendow-ment. I do not say that this Bill will do very much to avert any risk that there may be of a measure of that kind being proposed; but, whatever it does, it will be in the direction of diminishing that risk. The right rev. Prelate who spoke first this evening (the Bishop of Lincoln) told us that the passing of this Bill would be only the forerunner of disendowment and disestablishment. I should have attached greater weight to that warning if I had not heard and read something like it very often before. Precisely the same thing was said when Catholic Emancipation was granted, when the disabilities of the Dissenters were removed, when the Jews were admitted to Parliament; and very much the same thing was said, not more than 20 years ago, when Church rates were done away with. Now, you cannot open a pamphlet or read a newspaper article on the state of the Church at the present time, written by anyone zealous in the interests of the Church, but it is sure to contain the highest panegyrics and congratulations on the zeal, the energy, the reviving influence, and the increased activity of the clerical body. I do not say that all these consequences have followed from the legislation to which I have referred; but I say that none of those measures have prevented that revival taking place which has undoubtedly occurred. Then, my Lords, comes the plea which certainly is a plausible one. We are asked—"Is it fair that the Established Church, alone of all denominations, should be unable to set apart burial-places exclusively for the use of its own members?" To that I answer, first, that the parish churchyard stands on a different footing from, any private burial-place established by a Nonconformist sect, inasmuch as it cannot be denied that the fact of connection with the State places the Established Church in a very different position from that of any other religious body. The peculiar privilege which the Establishment holds confers great advantages, and those who enjoy it ought not to complain if there are some corresponding drawbacks. But, secondly, I should answer that if private persons, be they few or many, choose to establish a burial-ground of their own in connection with the Established Church, I see nothing in this Bill, nor in the law as it stands, that prevents their doing so; and in regard

  1049
  to any such, ground, I suppose they would be free to frame any rules they pleased. That is a right which ought not to be taken from them, and I do not believe that this Bill in any way disturbs it. My Lords, for these reasons—because this Bill settles a long pending dispute in the only way in which it can be settled; because it violates no private right and injures nobody; because I believe the feeling of pain and resentment which it undoubtedly produces in some quarters will pass off with time, and in no great length of time, I shall support the second reading. But there are some points in which I think it admits of being amended. One is the limitation of Christian services. I am not going to argue that question on any broad, speculative ground; but is it wise to put into an Act of Parliament a term which you cannot define, and a restriction which you cannot enforce? You cannot deny to the Unitarian Body the title of Christians; their services are undoubtedly Christian services; but the line of demarcation between at least a part of the Unitarian Body and those who profess simple Theism is a very vague one. I hope that before this clause passes your Lordships will ask yourselves whether the words "Christian service" are capable of accurate definition for legal purposes. For instance, is a service non-Christian in which the name of the Founder of the Christian religion is not simply mentioned? Does it become non-Christian by mere omission? Questions of that kind would be disagreeable as well as difficult to have to argue in a Court of Law. What we should all agree in is to prohibit controversial and irritating language of any kind on the occasion of a funeral; and if words can be framed that will answer that purpose, I think any other restriction might be withdrawn. I say this the more, as the restriction is not likely to be operative. The offence is in its nature very difficult to face; and, practically, it is not likely that prosecutions for it will ever take place. The other point in which this Bill seems to me objectionable is that which, if I understand the proposal rightly, gives to every curate the right of varying the Burial Service at his discretion, according to his personal judgment of the merits and character of the person whom he is burying. ["No!"] I am glad to find that in that respect I
  1050
  am wrong. At any rate, the matter is one which may be dealt with in Committee; and I have no hesitation in saying that I shall support the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that the merits of the Bill were so apparent that very little argument was required to show them. It had been contended by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) that no Englishman had a right at common law to be buried in the parish churchyard, or, at any rate, that that right arose from the fact that he was supposed to be a member of the Church of England. Well, he (the Earl of Dunraven) was not conversant with the common law of England; but he understood, and he believed it to be the fact, that every Englishman had a right to interment in his parish churchyard, not because he was supposed to be a member of the Church of England, but because it was necessary for him to be buried somewhere, and the parish churchyard was the appropriate place for him to be buried in. The noble Eai-1 who had just sat down (the Earl of Derby) truly observed there could be no doubt about the grievance of Nonconformists, and that it was a great one; but the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) appeared to have very great doubt on that subject. In fact, the right rev. Prelate who spoke first (the Bishop of Lincoln), and the noble Viscount opposite, said the grievance, if it existed at all, was very small and limited. Well, considering the number of times that this question had been mooted in Parliament, considering the fact that there were several societies whose special and only object was to remove this state of things, it appeared more likely that Nonconformists in Lincolnshire had a grievance than that they had no grievance at all. The noble Viscount laid some stress upon the hardship that the Bill would inflict upon the donors of land for the purpose of a churchyard, and said that such land would be used for purposes other than those for which it was given. But it appeared to him (the Earl of Dunraven) that by this Bill they would be able to apply that land to the object for which it was given. The churchyards were given to the nation, and intended to be for the nation's use; and the substantial object of the Bill was to give effect to that principle, and to en,-

  1051
  able the nation to have the practical enjoyment of its right. The right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment mentioned the case of Ireland, and said that no good accrued to Ireland from the 1868 Bill, hut. a great deal of harm. He could scarcely agree with the right rev. Prelate. It might just as well be said that because Parliament had long withstood the just claims of Nonconformists, we had had bad trade and agricultural depression, and were obliged to resort to a Hares and Rabbits Bill to do something for the farmer. Ireland was a very distracted country. Religious intolerance ran very high, and, perhaps, the one gleam in the darkness was that they did not carry their sectarian bitterness beyond the fences of the churchyard. The only objection he had to the Bill was that difficulties might arise from the insertion of the word "Christian" before the description of services. It was a term very difficult to define, and would lead to a great deal of litigation and heart-burning. He thought clauses guarding against indecent or scandalous proceedings would be quite sufficient, leaving the rest to the good taste and good feeling of the people. It had been objected to the measure that it was but a beginning, and that it must inevitably lead up to the disestablishment of the Church. He could not accept that assertion, because he did not believe that those of their Lordships who intended to vote in favour of this Bill were necessarily opposed to the, Established Church. For his own part he desired, in favour of the Church, that this measure should become law. He also thought Churchmen ought to support the Bill, because there was nothing more foolish in the Church militant, as in military tactics, than to make a strong fight on a weak point. It might be very well to skirmish round the churchyard fence; but to make too strong an opposition to the principle of the Bill would be to incur the risk of allowing the line of the churchyard fence to be eventually forced with such a rush that there would be scarcely time to close the church doors before the enemy captured that position also. He supported the measure for three reasons—first, because it would relieve Nonconformists from a great grievance; secondly, because it would take from England the odium of being the only country in the world where
  1052
  such a state of law existed; and, thirdly, because it would strengthen the position of the Church, in order that when the attack upon her did come she might be strong enough to withstand it.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONdesired to state the reasons which led him, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill. He did not, however, intend to give that vote on the ground put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was the common-law right of every person in this country to be buried in the parish graveyard, but because he thought the concession demanded could safely be granted. The noble and learned Lord appeared to have overlooked the fact that for the last 30 years the graveyards had been closed in many parishes, as, for example, St. James's, Westminster, which had refused to provide parochial cemeteries, and that there were, therefore, many thousands of individuals who had no common-law right to be buried in any place unless they or their relations purchased such a right from one of the different cemetery companies. At all events, none had a common-law right to be buried in the churchyard with any ceremonies they chose, the right of burial, such as it was, being coupled with the condition that they should have the Service of the Church of England performed over them. It was said that the grievance felt by Dissenters in this matter was only a sentimental one; but their Lordships were aware that sentimental grievances were more severely felt than those which were physical or pecuniary, in the family, the State, and the Church. In his opinion, the only fair way of estimating a sentimental grievance was to place oneself in the position of those who felt themselves aggrieved by it, and he must honestly say that he should regard it as a great grievance if, having been brought up as a member of the Church of England, he were compelled to be buried in a strange burial-ground with a form of service to which he had entertained an objection during his life. But it was said there would be a grievance inflicted on the Churchman if the Bill were passed, as he would be subjected to the intrusion into the churchyard of one with whom he had differed on religious matters. So far as he was concerned it would be not the slightest

  1053
  grievance to Mm that the friends of a deceased Nonconformist requested that he should be buried, and that instead of the Burial Service being read, prayers of which they approved should be reverently offered up. He should be more glad than otherwise at such a request. Then it was feared by some that offensive and profane proceedings would occur in the graveyards. They had already had some experience of the way in which the concession would be used, for in almost every large town there were cemeteries, partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated, and he had obtained returns from the chaplains of the various cemeteries around the Metropolis on that point, and the result showed that at the great majority of the burials in unconsecrated ground the Burial Service of the Church of England, or portion of it, was read, and that all the other services were conducted in a peaceable, orderly, and unobjectionable manner. Considering the strong public opinion that prevailed against objectionable demonstrations in churchyards, he thought it most improbable that any such scene would occur. He considered the Bill very valuable also as conceding to Churchmen what they had so long asked for—namely, liberty in certain cases to make alterations in the service, and he recognised in it an earnest attempt to heal a sore, to close an irritating question, and he hoped it would be so accepted by those for whoso relief it was intended. In conclusion, he would say he did not apprehend any danger to the Church from the passing of this Bill.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, it was satisfactory to find that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), who had hitherto considered it his duty to oppose a Bill on the same lines as the one under consideration, had now thought fit to support the Bill of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the whole spirit of the debate had been one of uniform toleration, and no bitterness had been exhibited on the one side or the other. The right rev. Prelate who opened the debate referred to a measure introduced for Ireland in 1868, and stated that in the opinion of two distinguished Prelates the effect of granting similar concessions in Ireland was failure in itself, and damage to the Church then there established. He could assure his right rev. Friend that nothing of the kind hap-
  1054
  pened. The object of the Bill was to remove a long-standing injustice under which a large body of our fellow-countrymen had long laboured, and it had removed that injustice most effectually; but anybody would indeed be sanguine who thought that a simple measure of justice would entirely remove and remedy a grievance which had lasted many centuries. The danger to the Church of England which the right rev. Prelate had predicted had already been disposed of by noble Lords who followed him, and he asked, Could anyone say that there was danger of disestablishment if this Bill passed? In point of fact, there was no connection whatever between the Act of 1868 and the Irish Church Act, and the latter Act expressly preserved the rights of the Protestant Church in Ireland to the exclusive use of the churches in that country. The right rev. Prelate who spoke later (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) had referred to the alteration which was made in the registration of marriages and baptisms, and asked why this question also could not be settled without taking away any of the rights of the Church? Well, it was easy to find other places of registry; but it would be difficult to find other places of burial than the churchyard. The grievance was this—if one member of a Nonconformist family was buried in the churchyard, the others could not be buried with him unless with a service to which they objected. It had been said that the grievance was a small one, and did not affect the large towns; but even there the grievance did exist, and the Bill proposed to remedy it. But, putting all the large towns aside, they would find an enormous part of the country where the grievance existed. If they took the number of consecrated places of worship and compared them with the quantity of consecrated ground, and then compared that with the number of unconsecrated places of worship and the quantity of unconsecrated ground, they would see that a very large number of the populalation had a grievance such as he had described. In England and Wales, speaking roughly, there were about 15,468 consecrated places of worship and about 14,012 consecrated burial-grounds. There were 20,490 unconsecrated churches and 5,005 unconsecrated grounds, Whereas there was about one

  1055
  consecrated churchyard to every consecrated building in the country, there was only one churchyard unconsecrated to about four unconsecrated buildings. Therefore, although the Dissenters could have their services in 5,000 churchyards in the country, they were precluded from having services to which they attached importance in more than 14,000. When you were redressing a grievance and an injustice, it did not matter whether the numbers suffering from it were large or small. The right thing to do was to redress the grievance. They were told that the Church of England would suffer by the passing of the Bill; but really, as a Churchman, he could not understand this argument at all. He could not understand how a Church so learned in its Prelates and clerical members, so rich in endowments, and with such a large following in the country, could be placed in jeopardy by the passing of a Bill of this kind. On the contrary, he believed it would strengthen the Church, by showing that it did not rely on such small matters, and it would remove a blot on Christian charity and Christian faith. It was said that justice ought to be consistent; but was it consistent with what Parliament had already done to reject this Bill? Would it be consistent with the relief from Jewish disabilities, with Catholic Emancipation, or with the abolition of Church rates? Consistency required that they should pass the Bill in order to keep pace with the progress of the principles which were advocated when these measures were passed and which did not bring any danger to the Church, but, on the contrary, strengthened its position in the country. In many parts of France, as already stated, Dissenters might be buried side by side with Roman Catholics. In Paris, he believed, the Roman Catholics consecrated the ground with each interment, and the next grave might be that of a Dissenter without any distinction between them. In Austria and Hungary, for many years past, Dissenters had been permitted not only to bury their dead in the churchyards but also to preach in them. Why should we be afraid of doing what other countries had done in liberally opening the churchyards to all? He sincerely trusted their Lordships would pass the measure, and remove what was an injustice to a large body of our fellow countrymen.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he could hardly reconcile himself to the position of a silent voter upon the question. A great deal was said as to whether the present state of the law was a grievance, and it was called a sentimental grievance. As to that, a man was the sole judge of his own grievance; and if he said he had one and continued to say it, we should be right in inferring that for him at least a grievance did exist. In Scotland, the graveyards were under the control of the Presbyterians; they were not consecrated, and interments were made with any service the relatives liked. He was told that no difficulty had been met with, and that the Scotch system worked well. When such appalling descriptions were given of what might happen with Mormonites, Socinians, Jews, they ought to take a more charitable view based upon actual experience. There had been no disturbance in Scotland, and he did not believe there would be any in England. There was a limit to the manifestation of human perversity; people generally behaved well at the grave-side, and he believed they would endeavour to behave still more reverently and decently under the operation of a measure of this kind. An argument he had not recovered from yet was that used by his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Lincoln), that the two Irish measures of l868 and l869 had any connection with each other. The only flaw in it was that the Act opening the Irish churchyards was passed in 1824, and all that was done in 1868 was to render unnecessary the consent of the clergyman, because it had been refused in one or two cases. He could only say that if the disestablishment of the Irish Church followed as a consequence from the taking away of the power of a few clergymen to prohibit burials, then the fabric of the Irish Church was of the frailest possible description. He had not heard much about the clergy in this debate, and yet there was something to be said on their account. In 1843, at the funeral in a London cemetery of an infidel writer and publisher named Richard Carlile, the clergyman, against the wishes of the friends, read the service. No wonder that that proceeding led to a commotion. The clergyman was not compellable to read it, unless the demand to have it read had been made by the friends, This was an extreme

  1057
  case; but there were cases not so extreme. The other day a clergyman wrote to him about a case, the difficulty of which had to be met before there was time for a reply, and the clergyman met it by omitting a portion of the service. It was a painful and difficult position in which to be placed, and the clergyman technically committed a breach of the law, for the Church of England Service had to be read over a Dissenter when the demand was made. He thought the time would come when the clergy would look back upon the controversy and say, What a strange position we had placed ourselves in ! We made a demand that we should of right go to the grave of a man whom ministerially we never saw, and that we should read over his remains a service which conveyed words of hope to the minds of the survivors, and therefore implied some degree of knowledge of their spiritual condition, and when some other arrangement was proposed we took our stand upon our right to read the Church Service over every one who was brought, whether we knew them or not. That was the point of view from which he regarded this question. He was perfectly well aware that the clergy held strong views upon the matter, and that they did not like the invasion of the churchyards; and yet he could not help thinking, when they looked back upon this painful controversy, that they would be thankful that the time had come when they were relieved from the duty of administering the rite of burial to the bodies of persons who would not accept their ministrations in life. There was, however, one part of the Bill to which he took exception. It had been shown most clearly by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that there was right of sepulture only in churchyards, and the right did not apply to cemeteries, or rather the contrary applied; and Parliament provided that there should be unconsecrated ground for those who did not accept the Church Service. The Common Law right had been dealt with there and disposed of, and the only reason given for including cemeteries in the Bill was that it might facilitate members of families being interred in the same ground. But these arrangements were comparatively recent. and since they were made Dissenters had been buried in the unconsecrated ground. There was, there-
  1058
  fore, no necessity to commit a wrong to Churchmen by including cemeteries in the Bill in order to remedy a grievance which, under the circumstances, could not very well exist. What was the amount of the injustice? It was that cemeteries were made by the rates, and Nonconformists had paid their share; but a Nonconformist might say he did not go by consecration, but wished to show every mark of respect to his dead relative, and would therefore bury his father or his wife in that ground. He thought, to make the Bill complete, cemeteries should be excepted. With reference to the clauses for the protection of the clergy, he thought them essential to the Bill. While, therefore, he voted for the second reading, he voted for the Bill as a whole; and if he found that those clauses had been dropped, he should reserve to himself the power to vote against the mutilated Bill. At the present moment the clergyman was bound to bury all his own people; but this Bill proposed that Nonconformists should have power to instruct their own ministers to read the service over their dead. But what if the Dissenter should not be able to find a minister of his own persuasion to read the service? The clergy should have some protection from the statutory obligation to read the service over the grave of any person over whom his relations could not obtain a Nonconformist minister to do so. The clergy felt very strongly about this question. He had received many letters on the subject, some of them indicating an intention to leave their position in the Church rather than submit to such a measure. He did not think any man should leave his position for such a cause; but the feeling was deep and strong. If the 10th and 11th clauses were passed, they would reconcile the clergy to the measure in a great degree. It was clear to him that the time had come when the question must be settled. In his opinion, it would have been better for the Church that it should have been settled 10 years ago. In that case, they would have obtained much better terms. They would even have obtained better terms had the Party opposite seen its way to accept the decision come to two years ago. However that might be, it must eventually be settled, and there was no chance of its being settled on any other terms than the recognition of the right

  1059
  of Dissenters to be buried with such religious services as their surviving rela-tives might desire. If so, could it be good for the Church, for Nonconformists, for the state of England, or for that feeling of brotherly love which ought to prevail among them, that this subject should be kept up as a perpetual source of dissension and strife? His belief was that it would be much better for all, if they could find a satisfactory settlement, that it should be settled now. He would, therefore, support the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he regretted very much that he did not in 1877 give the casting vote against the Earl of Harrowbv's clause on its first appearance. Tie (Lord Denman) ventured to think that if the 74th clause undisturbed by Amendments from the right rev. Bench had been allowed to go to "another place," that it might have been so modified as to be carried on the return of the Bill with its Amendments. If the Bill were to be brought back in the way surmised by the most rev. Prelate, he believed that, from the announcement that this Session must be short, any alterations made in "another place" would be forced on their Lordships. He (Lord Denman) wished 13 years ago to present an acre of ground to a Diocesan Committee, and it had been rejected; but if it had been accepted he would have been much surprised by the claim of this Bill. The 8th clause professed to confer no right which did not exist before; as it was, half-an-acre of wet ground had been given by a Churchman, and without this Bill might soon be over-crowded. A relative of his own (Sir Charles Anderson, in John Hull) had exposed the enthusiasm of Dissenters who had a "Vision of Judgment" contrary to sober religion. He (Sir Charles Anderson) had also written rather disrespectfully of the most rev. Primates; but he (Lord Denman) believed it was true, as Sir Charles wrote, that their Graces had had very little practical experience of small rural parishes as incumbents. He (Lord Denman) had the greatest respect for the English Church, and could prove the same, as to Dissenters, but regretted that he could not vote for this Bill. The Primate of England had spoken of the quiet in Scotch churchyards; but the graveyards were the property of the heritors, and the Established Church of Scotland did not require the presence
  1060
  of her ministers in the graveyard, but enjoined them, if present, to admonish the living. If a burial had been allowed, there would have been no necessity for arbitrary services, and no danger to the clergy from not reading the office of burial as settled by the Act of Uniformity, 1662.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall say nothing to disturb the calm tone with which the debate has been conducted on the one side and the other. Though I might, perhaps, wish to have heard a greater number of speeches in opposition to the view of those with whom I agree, I do not disparage the speeches which I have heard. The right, rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment (the Bishop of Lincoln) is a man for whom I entertain the most profound respect. Nothing fell from him which did not become his character and position, and his feelings must command the sympathy of those who differ from the conclusion at which he has arrived. I hope he will give the same full credit, not only to those of his light rev. Brethren, but to the rest of your Lordships who take a different view of the interests of the Church from himself, for the same sincere desire to do right as well to the Church as the Nonconformists, which, for my part, I am ready to attribute to him. It is a painful part of this painful question that men who heartily agree in the objects at which they aim, and to whom the interests of the Church of England are precious, should differ on a subject on which so much feeling is excited, as to the true mode of dealing with it. As for myself, I came to the conclusions at which I have arrived several years before I gave expression to them in Parliament. I did so not for the sake of pleasing or conciliating any body of men whatever, certainly not for the sake of encouraging any attacks on the Church of which I am a member, and for the sake of whose true interests I should always be prepared to make any sacrifice, but because I was not able to escape from the conclusion that, at the bottom of this question, besides much feeling and much danger from the continuance of the irritation produced by that feeling, there was a positive) claim on the ground of justice which Parliament ought to meet. Before I address myself to the argument on the

  1061
  main question, perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I make some observations on some of the more important details of the Bill to which reference has been made. The noble and rev. Lord who spoke against the Bill (Lord Hawke) appeared to think it was a great wrong to the clergy to expect them to register burials under this Bill. I was surprised at what was said by the noble and rev. Lord on this point, because I do not imagine he intended to suggest that it was desirable to take the management of the churchyard out of the hands of the parochial clergy. But I would ask the noble and rev. Lord, How is it possible that the registration of such burials can be made except in the general register of burials in the churchyard, of which the parochial clergyman has the custody? The fact of the burial will be certified to him, not by anyone claiming an official title, for he is not to be brought into contact for the purpose of his duty with anyone claiming such a character, but by the relative or other person responsible for the burial, who originally sent him notice that advantage would be taken of the provisions of the Act. What injury, even to the most sensitive, can possibly be done by recording on the registry the fact that such a burial has been in this manner certified? There is, no doubt, a small point of detail which, in Committee, it maybe desirable to meet by a slight verbal Amendment. As such registries areusually kept, there is a column entitled "By whom the ceremony is performed." Instead of making an entry of the person who performed the ceremony, it may be proper to provide that the burial shall be entered in that column merely as certified by A. B. under the Act. The most rev. Prelate who presides over the Province of York thought that while it was right to deal with churchyards as we proposed it was wrong to include cemeteries. Now, if cemeteries were taken out of the Bill, there would be matter remaining for the growth of a new grievance, and to prevent this, the Government have thought it wise to include cemeteries. It is unquestionably the right of Parliament, if it seems important to effect a satisfactory and final settlement, to deal with that part of the question as is proposed in the Bill; and the reason why the Government have been induced so to deal with it is, that representations
  1062
  have reached us from a variety of quarters, showing that the matter is from year to year assuming a practical character on account of that feeling which we all recognize as natural, the wish of persons not to be separated in death from those they love, and also through the acquisition of rights of property in graves. These cemeteries are public, created under Acts of Parliament by rates to which all classes of the community have contributed; and though it has been provided by those statutes that certain parts shall be consecrated and set apart for burials according to the rites of the Church, there has been no separation of the rates paid by Churchmen from those paid by Nonconformists. The Bill gives reciprocal rights to those who prefer the Church Service in the unconsecrated part of these cemeteries. I come now to a clause—the 11th—which has been very much misunderstood. The noble Earl who sits below the Gangway (the Earl of Derby), and who spoke with the usual clearness of his very clear intellect, himself seemed to have formed some misconception of that clause. We were very anxious, looking at both sides of the question, while, on the one hand, we met the just claims of Nonconformists, to consider, on the other, whether the clergy had or had not any reasonable claim with which it would be in our power to deal. The difficulty pressing upon the clergy has been of two kinds. In the first place, they have no power under the law as it stands to gratify in any way the religious and natural feelings of those who, being members of the Church, have lost their children before baptism, and who desire to have some religious service at the funeral. The sympathies of the clergy with the laity have led both to desire that they should be enabled in some way to meet the natural feelings which such an occasion would call forth. Accordingly, the 11th clause of the Bill exempts the clergy from penalties if this is done, in all or any of the cases in which by the ecclesiastical law the Burial Service cannot be used. It enables the clergy, if it be desired by the relatives, to use prayers and read passages of Scripture, subject to a restriction, that the prayers are not to be those which are proper to the Communion Office or the Burial Office of the Church. I might myself have preferred that there should be no such

  1063
  restriction; but I do not think your Lordships would be disposed, on a mere point of ritual which is of no real importance, to object to what the Convocation of Canterbury has recommended. In the rest of the Prayer Book and in the Scriptures there is an abundance of excellent materials which may well be used in committing to the grave the children of those who may desire it. I trust your Lordships will not be unwilling to give that measure of relief. The thing cannot be done at the mere option of the clergyman, but only when it is desired by the relatives of the deceased. The other difficulty is in the present inflexible obligation of the clergy to read the whole Burial Service, except in three specified cases. The only enlargement of these cases now proposed is the addition of persons who may die in the act of committing any grievous crime, meaning, as I understand it, a "crime" known to the law. It is a very limited provision, and it will have a very limited effect. If any man dies in the commission of murder, or of any other grievous crime, it is, I think, right that that case should be added to the category; and it is the only addition made to the category of exclusions from those rites of the Church. As to the large class of cases of persons who may have been reputed to be evil livers, no discretion is given to the clergy to institute any inquisition whatever post mortem. The clergyman is to have no power of his own to dispense with or abridge the Church Service in the case of any person at present by law entitled to have it performed; but an abridgment of that service may be used, at the request or with the consent of the relatives of the deceased, and not otherwise. I cannot but think the relatives would, in many instances, be willing to accept an abbreviation of the Service, while the parts omitted would be those which wound the consciences of sensitive men, and, at the same time, too often lead to misunderstanding and scandal, and are made matter of reproach by Nonconformists against the Church. I hope, therefore, that when this proposal is understood, it will be seen that the Convocations have really exercised their judgment in this matter with great care and caution, and with a desire not to enter on that dangerous and fatal ground which would
  1064
  involve an inquisition at a man's death into the history of his life. With regard to the recital of the proceedings of Convocation, I believe that has been done in the recent Acts for relaxing the Act of Uniformity, as it was in the original Act of Uniformity itself. There is another point of yet more difficulty and delicacy, which I should like to explain. The noble Earl who spoke from below the Gangway (the Earl of Derby) touched upon it. He expressed some doubt, first of all, as to the consistency with the principle of the Bill of the limitation, by the word "Christian," of "orderly religious services;" and, secondly, whether the word is not too vague to be of any legal effect, or might not give rise to undesirable questions. Now, I think I can show that the introduction of that word is in no way inconsistent. The present legal right is a right to burial in the churchyards, and I admit that it has always been subject to certain ecclesiastical conditions. I say now, as I have before, that to impose the Church Service on unwilling persons is a profanation of that Service from a Church point of view, and it is also inconsistent with religious liberty when it is made the condition of a civil right. In that respect, I maintain that the present state of the law is such, that you must, in consistency with the principles of civil and religious liberty, either take away the civil right or change the ecclesiastical condition. But I never have gone, and I never should go so far, with respect to the other class of cases—namely, those in which the Church Service cannot be performed; because, as to that, I do not think you can take up such high ground as to say that there is a civil right to have a religious service. That is certainly not a right given or contemplated by the Common Law; and if the Common Law had given, certainly could not have contemplated any other than a Christian service, because it is an old and true saying, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land—of the Common Law. The right to a religious service in the churchyard cannot, therefore, be represented as a Common Law right, nor even necessarily as a natural right. The State would not be infringing any principle necessary to be observed, if, for reasons of public order, it imposed limi-

  1065
  tations upon the right to use religious ceremonies or services in any public place, whether consecrated or not. What I have maintained and still maintain is, that, although that part of the liberty proposed to be given by the Bill cannot be claimed on the same footing of civil right as the exemption from the necessity of the Church Service may be claimed, yet it is wise, desirable, and necessary for the proper settlement of such a question, in these cases of strong religious feeling prompting men to acts of devotion, to allow the largest measure of religious liberty that you safely can, and to sympathize with and not discourage the religious sentiment. And for that reason I say that any settlement of this matter would be utterly unsatisfactory, and would, in truth, be no settlement at all, which did not allow all persons professing to be Christians to use their own religious services. Then, it is asked, why stop there? I stop there for two or three reasons. In the first place, these are the words which were moved by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1876, and which were again proposed in 1877 by Lord Harrowby, and then adopted by your Lordships' House. At all events, they have undergone some consideration, and have met with some approval from your Lordships. But, in the second place, it appears to me to be in itself right and expedient, and consistent with every principle on which we ought to legislate, to exclude from our churchyards, which have been consecrated and set apart for Christian burial as their leading and primary use, observances and demonstrations which are pagan or anti-Christian. I want to know what other cases are really and practically excluded? Not, certainly, the case of those who deny all religion. They cannot want religious services; and there can be no principle on which to violate the sanctity of the churchyards by admitting anything that is anti-Christian and irreligious. Surely, in the interest of the order of the State, and to avoid raising questions of feeling and of difficulty which nothing has made it practically necessary to raise, you may wisely draw the line where the Common Law draws it, saying that this is a Christian country, and that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land. And although Jews
  1066
  are persons with whose feelings I can sympathize as well as with those of Christians, I cannot perceive that there is any reason for refusing to draw the line, in the only way that it can be drawn, on their account; especially when the question is not, as I am informed, a practical one for them, as they have cemeteries of their own to which they are attached, and they have no desire to be buried in Christian graveyards. The provision would, of course, be acted upon in the Courts which administer law in the largest and most liberal spirit. The Unitarians have been, by Act of Parliament, admitted to the full benefit of those Acts of Toleration that were enacted in favour of Protestant Dissenters. Nor could there be any greater difficulty now than there was in Woolston's case, which came before Lord Raymond in the Queen's Bench early in the last century, in distinguishing in a Court of Law—should that become necessary—between opposition to Christianity in general, and the rejection of particular tenets which have been the subjects of controversy among persons calling themselves Christians. Passing from these particular points, which must, of course, be considered in Committee, to the general argument, I am happy to think, from what has been said even by those right rev. Prelates who have opposed the Bill, that there cannot be any great reasons for apprehending cases of difficulty or distress arising out of the Bill. In the first place, we have been told, and I believe quite truly, that in cemeteries, where the ground is divided into consecrated and unconsecrated, and where every man is free to choose the mode of burial which he prefers, a great majority of Nonconformists prefer to be buried with the Church Service in consecrated ground. That, my Lords, is strong evidence that this Bill will do no great harm; for if they prefer, for that reason, the consecrated part of the cemetery, it is likely that they will prefer still more to be buried with the Church Service in the churchyard. I do not think it is necessary to answer the questions which were asked—"What sort of Service will it be? Who is to watch? Who is to prosecute?" My answer is, I hope that nobody will watch and that nobody will prosecute, because I think it quite unnecessary to anticipate that there will be any real cause for pro-

  1067
  secutions; and I am not anxious to inquire, and do not care to know, what sort the Service is as long as it is Christian, orderly, and religious. I should be sorry, my Lords, if it is not Christian, if it is not orderly, or not religious. There might be disorder and misconduct at any funeral now; but nobody thinks such disorder or misconduct so probable, as to make it necessary for the law to take extraordinary precautions against it. It is enough that it should be prohibited and punishable. The best safeguard against the choice of a funeral as an occasion for disorder is in the natural feelings of humanity, which, in the absence of any special provocation or cause of excitement, abhor and oppose themselves to disorder, and even to irreverence, on such an occasion. If, from any cause whatever, such disorder should here and there occur, there will be power in anyone that is scandalized to put the law in motion. As for the argument from the churchyard to the church, I doubt the wisdom of those who press it, either as a logical or as a practical consequence. To me it does not appear to be so, because the reasons on which I proceed—the necessity of death, the necessity of burial, and the civil right of interment in the churchyard—have no application to the church. There may, no doubt, be arguments used by some which might be carried to that length; but I have myself never used, and I disavow, such arguments. No doubt, there are some who want Disestablishment, and whose views of Disestablishment extend to the alienation of all sacred edifices from the Church. But, apart from this, I have not yet heard any demand made for the use of the church by Nonconformists, nordoes it appear to me that the nature or the circumstances of the case are likely to lead to such a demand. With regard to danger to the Church, I have never said there was no danger to the Church; but it has always appeared to me that danger is not increased by diminishing friction or removing grievances. Those things are dangerous which cause friction and irritation between large and powerful classes on points which touch both natural feeling and religious sentiment; especially on a point as to which the continuance of the existing state of things cannot be defended on any safe or satisfactory principle. The Church, my Lords, as was very truly said by a
  1068
  speaker who preceded me, has manifested a great increase of strength, power, and influence in this country since the passing of those measures which were introduced to enlarge the liberties of Nonconformists, and to take away the more invidious privileges of the Church. If the clergy—I hope it will not be the case—should not obey the law in the spirit of loyal citizens and with the charity of Christians; if they should permit excitement or feelings of annoyance on their part to manifest themselves in a manner occasioning acrimony, irritation, and controversy, then possibly some danger to the Church may arise. We must, however, remember that there must be two parties alway's to discord, and that it is one of the highest privileges of the clergy of the Church of England to act as the moderators of strife. They are the messengers and the teachers of peace; and if they are true to that high calling, I entertain no doubt that this measure, instead of proving a danger to the Church, may, in the end, prove, to the cause of which they are the ministers and the defenders, a boon and a blessing.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 126; Non-Contents 101: Majority 25.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellar.)

  Jersey, E.

  York, L. Archp.

  Kimberley, E. Leicester, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Morley, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Morton, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Portarlington, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Rosse, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Sydney, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Zetland, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Canterbury, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Cawdor, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hereford, V.

  Derby, E.

  Leinster, Y. (D. Leinster.)

  Devon, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Powerseourt, Y.

  Fitawilliam, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  1069

  Llandnff, L. Bp.

  Keane, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Belper, L.

  Lvttelton, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Methuen, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Braye, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Mount Temple, L.

  Carvsfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess borough.)

  Chesham, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Crewe, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Ebury, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Stafford, L

  Emly, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Ettrick. L. (L. Napier.)

  Fitzhardinge, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield)

  Foley, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Greville, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Hammond, L.

  Tollemaehe, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Waveney, L.

  Hatherley, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Leeds, D.

  Eldon, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Feversham, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Harewood, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Nelson, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Powis, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Bcauehamp, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Romney, E.

  Clonmell, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Sondes, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buceleuch and Queensberry.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  1070

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Forbes, L.

  Forester, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Melville, V.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Harlech, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) [Teller.]

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Hawke, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Abinger, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Airey, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bary.)

  Lilford, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Bagot, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Manners, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Norton, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Raglan, L.

  Clifton, L. (E Darnley.)

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Clinton, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denman, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Digby, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Donington, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 15th instant.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.