Sitting of 9 March 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Sugar Industries [No. 106]; Merchant Ships Laden in Bulk [No. 110].
WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION.

  CLOSING OF PUBLIC-HOUSES ON SUNDAY.
  MR. STEVENSON: Sir, in consequence of the necessary absence of many hon. Members, and the impossibility of

  681
  obtaining an adequate discussion on the subject, I do not intend to proceed with the Resolution which stands in my name for Friday next in favour of closing public-houses on Sunday. At the same time, I beg to give Notice that if I have the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, I will, on the earliest opportunity, by Bill or by Motion, bring the subject forward.

QUESTIONS.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—SHEEP ROT.
  MR. PAGETasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If his attention has been called to the prevalence of sheep-rot, and the enormous losses occasioned thereby; and, if in view of the magnitude of the disaster, Her Majesty's Government will institute scientific inquiries into the matter?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the nature and causes of rot in sheep are so well understood, that it is not likely that any further scientific inquiry could add usefully to our present knowledge on the subject. The results of previous investigations will be found in Professor Simmond's Paper, reprinted this year, from the "Journal" of the Royal Agricultural Society, and in Professor Brown's Essay in the Bath Society's "Journal," 1861. Wet seasons, by favouring the development of the fluke, which produces liver rot, are the main causes of the disease, and there have been serious outbreaks of it after wet seasons—in 1735, 1747, 1766, 1792, 1809, 1817, 1824, 1830, 1853, 1860, and again in 1879. A dry, hot season, is the one thing necessary to arrest the ravages of the disease.

  VALUATION OF PROPERTY (METROPOLIS) ACT—THE SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONS.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, if any alteration is made in the Returns issued for the assessment of property under the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act (but which are now in circulation), some modification should not be made in Questions 10, 11, and
  682
  13, so as to adapt them to the circumstances of the particular parish, it being not only useless but inconvenient to ratepayers to answer such questions in parishes where there is no Land Tax, where there has never been any Tithes, and where the amount of Sewers Rate varies from year to year, and can be easier ascertained by the rating authorities than by the ratepayers?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, no alteration was intended to be made in the form of these Papers at present. The form must be general, and it would be impracticable to make separate forms for different parishes. No penalties would be incurred by leaving blank those particular questions not applicable to a person's case.

  INDIAN FAMINE COMMISSION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, To state the amount monthly paid for salaries and allowances to the officers employed on the Famine Commission, including the Secretariat and Establishment; also the amount paid to officers in India performing the duties of the Commissioners and Secretary?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the amount now being paid monthly for salaries and allowances to the officers employed on the Famine Commission in England is 10,777 rupees, besides a guinea a-week to a messenger. We do not accurately know the allowances paid in India to officers acting for the Commissioners who are in England; but they are given under the general rules of the Service, which prescribe that each officer so acting receives 20 per cent of the pay of the substantive appointment of the absentee. But as the absentee receives only two-thirds of his Indian salary while working for the Famine Commission in England, the saving so effected more than covers the allowances in India.

  CYPRUS LARNACA.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that in the course of the winter several persons have been drowned in attempting to land at Larnaca, and, whether the Government have taken or propose to take any steps for providing a safe landing-place there?
  MR. BOURKE: NO, Sir. No report of such an occurrence as that mentioned by the hon. Member has reached the Foreign Office, and no proposal to provide a new landing-place is before the Foreign Office.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I would ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he will make inquiries?
  MR. BOURKE: We have made inquiries. The fact of the hon. Member having asked the Question will draw the Commissioner's attention to the report.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—PENSIONS.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any fund out of which the widow of Ambrose Shelvey, the policeman who for so long a time did duty at the library door, and who had been nearly forty years in the police service, could obtain any pension or pecuniary gratuity; and, whether the widow would be entitled to any relief from the police fund, to which her husband had been compelled to contribute during the whole term of his service in the police force?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, there was no Government fund out of which the widow of Ambrose Shelvey could obtain a pension; but she would be entitled to a sum of £38 out of the Police Fund, and if there were any children, they would have a claim on the orphanage belonging to the force.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE "STRELNA."
  MR. BURT (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to order an inquiry into the loss of the "Strelna," wrecked off the Vickerland, near Antwerp, on the 2nd of January 1880, and which is said to have had on board 1,100 tons of linseed, although she appears to be of only 664 tons burden; and, if the inquiry will be directed to ascertain whether the said linseed was in bulk or in bags, and, if in bulk, whether any and, if so, what amount of shifting boards were employed to prevent the shifting of the cargo?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman appears to have been incorrectly informed when he states that the
  684
  Strelna was lost, as I am assured that she is at this moment in a dry dock at Antwerp. The accident which befell her seems to be very simply explained, and appears to have had nothing what' ever to do with her cargo. She was bound from Eiga for Antwerp, and completed her sea voyage in safety. On arrival off the river there was so much ice that it was unsafe for her to proceed up, and she put into Flushing Dock, where she remained for a fortnight, and on the navigation being resumed she left in charge of a Belgian official pilot, who appears to have run her ashore on the banks, which were not clearly discernible owing to the river having overflowed them. As far as our information goes, the accident appears to have been simply the result of an error on the part of the pilot, and to be in no way connected with the ship, or her cargo, or the conduct of her officers. In these circumstances, the Board of Trade would not be justified with their present information in ordering an inquiry.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "HARTER."
  MR. BURT (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the ship "Harter," brought before the magistrates of Southport on a charge of overloading, and in which the magistrates inflicted a penalty of only five pounds; and, whether he will give instructions in future cases to press for a more adequate penalty, one which shall at least amount to the extra freight earned by the overloading complained of and proved?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I am informed by my legal advisers that this was not what is legally termed a case of "over-loading," an indictable offence which cannot be dealt with summarily, but a case of allowing "the ship to be so loaded as to submerge in salt water the centre of the disc," the penalty for which is one not exceeding £100. The crew had all been discharged before proceedings could be commenced, and the men, who left the vessel at New York, and upon whose complaint the Consul reported the facts, had not returned to the United Kingdom, so that the Board of Trade had only to rely upon the master's admissions, and could not press

  685
  the case against him, as might have been done in other circumstances. It was, however, considered important to obtain a conviction, even with a nominal penalty. If it should be found hereafter that heavier penalties are needed to secure obedience to the law, I have no doubt that we shall press for a heavier penalty. But it must always be remembered that the amount of the penalty is in the discretion of the Court, and that pressing for a heavier penalty may in some cases lose a conviction. The management of these cases is one of discretion, and I can give no pledge whatever, except that I shall take such steps as I think most likely to secure that the law shall be obeyed, and that the intentions of Parliament shall be carried out.

  RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.
  MR. BAXTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, If any more energetic and satisfactory steps have recently been taken by the Railway Companies to provide their trains with continuous brakes answering the requirements of the Board of Trade; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the policy indicated in August 1878, that further action must be taken in that respect to compel the adoption of measures for the protection of the travelling public?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I can hardly say that the steps taken by the Railway Companies as to continuous brakes have been as energetic and as satisfactory as I could wish, for up to the present time only 1,114 out of 4,833 engines, and 11,302 out of 40,651 carriages, &c., in use, have been fitted with continuous brakes. Of these, 288 engines and 2,441 carriages, or 6 per cent, were fitted during the year 1878. In 1879 the progress was not very great, though it is slightly in excess of 1878—that is to say, 352 engines and 2,912 carriages, or 7 per cent, were fitted during that year. I cannot hold that these figures show any very rapid action. It is fair, however, to observe that the constant improvements which are being made in continuous brakes explain to a certain degree the hesitation of the Companies in coming to a decision on this matter, and they also certainly show how inexpedient it would be that Parliament, unless absolutely compelled by
  686
  the want of action on the part of the Companies, should lay down a rule as to the adoption of some particular form of brake.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS— THE "HINDOO."
  MR. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has seen a statement of the abandonment of the S.S. "Hindoo" in mid-ocean, the crew of which numbered fifty men, who were providentially saved from drowning by a passing steamer; if he is aware that the said ship carried upwards of 20,000 bushels of wheat, 5,000 bushels of peas, and 57,811 bushels of maize (Indian corn); and, whether he can inform the House what portion of the above quantities of grain was in bulk, and what portion was in sacks or bags?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Hindoo was abandoned on a voyage from New York, and the survivors have been taken to New York. I sent a telegram to the Consul General at New York some days ago to obtain and send homo full particulars, and also to send home the witnesses. I have already ordered an inquiry to be held in London, and until that inquiry has been held I am not in a position to give further information.

  COMMISSION ON LIGHTS FOR FISHING VESSELS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table, and issue to Members with the promised Report, the evidence given at the inquiries, respecting the proposed new regulations for lights for fishing vessels, held at Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Hull, Brixham, and Penzance?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, no evidence was taken down on the spot by the Commission that made inquiry as to the proposed new regulations for lights for fishing vessels. I am informed by the Commissioners that the most important evidence they had was in the form of conversation with the fishermen and a personal inspection of the boats and the lights. It is not in my power, therefore, to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, which otherwise I would have been glad to do.

  METROPOLIS WATERWORKS PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before concluding his negotiations with the London Water Companies, he obtained Reports and Estimates from competent engineers of the probable cost of extra works, if any, required to give an adequate constant supply of pure water on the transfer of the various undertakings; a similar estimate for works having the same object during the period covered by the proposed payments of deferred stock, and a Report and Estimate of the cost of establishing entirely new works adequate to afford such a supply over the area served by the existing Companies; and, if such Reports and Estimates have been obtained, whether he will lay them upon the Table?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, of course, all these questions were matters which had to be very carefully considered; and if the Bill had gone into Committee, I should then have been prepared by evidence, before the Committee, to have shown actually what would have been the estimated cost and expenses of these matters. They are not in such a form as could be placed on the Table of the House, nor at the present moment do I think it would be conducive to the public interest that they should be laid upon the Table. But whenever the Bill gets into Committee, if it ever does get into Committee, I will take care that all these matters are laid before it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he could not give any Return on the subject? He understood the day before that a Return would be given, although in a slightly altered form, and he had been expecting that Return from the Home Office.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: If the hon. Baronet will allow me, I will communicate with him in reference to this matter before the close of the evening, and explain my views upon it.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, In what position the new Water Bill (Metropolis) now stands; and, whether it would not be better to withdraw such Bill at once, seeing that there in not any chance of its being
  688
  passed before the dissolution of Parliament?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) a day or two ago, that the Bill would not appear upon the Paper again this Session. At present the public do not appear willing to pay the price at which alone the Companies are willing to sell, and therefore the matter will remain in abeyance. But I wish, with the permission of the House, to correct a few errors which appear to prevail as to what I said on two points in connection with the Water Bill. I am reported to have said that there would be a saving of £50,000 in the year 1880 from the consolidation of the staff and in engineering operations. What I believe I did say was that there would be a saving of £50,000 owing to the basis on which the income of the Companies in that year was calculated, and the abolition of directors' fees, besides the saving by consolidation of staff and in engineering operations, which is variously computed at from £75,000 to £100,000. Secondly, as to the impression which appears to prevail that the ratepayers will not be consulted, I do not understand how this impression could have got abroad. The whole object and end of the Bill was that the ratepayers should be brought into the same Committee-room as the Companies, and that they should have every opportunity of pressing their views on the Committee for rejecting the Bill if they thought it was not beneficial to them. Should the matter again come forward, the ratepayers may rest assured that they will be duly consulted, and have ample opportunity of making their views felt.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask a Question also of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill, which, if more convenient, I will put down for Thursday? It is, Whether any steps could be taken before any legislation takes place with regard to the Water Companies to prevent any alteration in the relative position of those Companies and the public in the interval? I mean, for instance, precautions that the Water Companies should not again raise their rates upon the public before the next valuation, and then make that raising of the rates a further argument for an increased price when fresh negotiations were opened.

  689
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state anything now to the House, or whether he would on Thursday be able to make a statement as to whether it is possible by a short clause, or by any other means, to endeavour to maintain the status quo in regard to these Water Companies?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I cannot answer that Question to-day; but on Thursday I shall be able to do so.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS—COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES—THE RESOLUTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, should the honourable Member for Chester fail to bring on his question as to the liability of railway employers to compensate workmen injured in common employment, he will give facilities for the discussion of the question of providing, under legislative sanction, insurance funds to meet all cases of injury and death by accidents, however caused, in the conduct of all our national industries alike?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, the Question rather surprises me, because I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) has his Notice down for to-night, and I presume if he can he will proceed with it. I think it would have been better to first ask him whether he had any intention to give up his Motion; but even if he did give up his Motion, I do not think I could give any facilities such as the hon. Member suggests. I shall have to be asking for facilities myself.

  ARMY—OFFICERS' QUARTERS, PRESTON BARRACKS, BRIGHTON.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in reference to the recent death of a Captain in the 16th Lancers, he has directed an inquiry to be made into the sanitary state of the new Officers' Quarters in Preston Barracks, Brighton, as regards ventilation, drainage, and water supply; and, if so, with what result?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that inquiries had been made by the War Office, and the Report received from the medical officers was that the
  690
  sanitary condition of the officers' quarters was very good; but that there were some slight defects which were being remedied.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— VOLUNTEER CLOTHING—THE EASTER MONDAY REVIEW—THE GENERAL ELECTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government would make arrangements to supply great coats on loan to those Volunteers who are intending to take part in the march out to Brighton at Easter?
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that before the Secretary of State for War answered that Question, perhaps he would allow him to put another on the same subject. Paragraph 419 of the Volunteer Regulations of 1878 provided that no Volunteer demonstration should take place at any place between the period of the issuing of a Writ for an election and the return of a Member to Parliament, and he wished to know what affect that regulation would have on the forthcoming Dissolution and the holding of the Review?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, perhaps I had better answer the Question put by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) first. Under the existing Regulations, which are based on the recommendations of the Volunteer Committee, great coats are allowed without expense to Volunteers only while in camp and under canvass, and otherwise the issue of great coats, except on payment, is invariably refused. Volunteers can purchase the great coats on the same terms of payment as are charged in the case of other clothing. We have 15,000 of these great coats, which could be purchased by the Volunteers on the same conditions as their other clothes; but if great coats were to be called for and supplied on all occasions of marches out and reviews it would lead to a considerable expense, because new coats once issued for this purpose could only be issued again as part worn. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), it will be my duty, in answer to that Question, to make a statement that causes me some regret. I am sorry to say that the Dis-

  691
  solution of Parliament announced yesterday will very materially influence the question of the proposal to hold a Volunteer Review on Easter Monday next. Under the Volunteer Regulations that have been laid down, the Volunteer corps are not allowed to assemble for any purpose whatever between the period of the issue of a Writ and the termination of an election, at the place at which headquarters are situated; and it is possible that the proceedings connected with the election may be going on in some—very few—boroughsonEasterMonday. Moreover, if troops of the Regular Forces should take part in the Review, as was anticipated, the Volunteers would be liable to the Army Discipline Act, and would then come under the 18th of Viet., c. 2, which makes it illegal for them to assemble within two miles of any city or place on the days of nomination, election, or polling. There is the possible alternative, of course, of allowing the Volunteers to assemble without any of the Regular officers or troops—that is to say, under their own commanders; but this would seem very inadvisable. But there also arose the further question whether, if the Review were held, they would not run the risk of failure by Volunteers who were electors absenting themselves for the purpose of attending the elections in their own boroughs. On the whole, in view of the legal and other difficulties, I have come to the conclusion, though with great reluctance, that it would be desirable to postpone the Review. If, however, any general desire is expressed to hold the Review at Whitsuntide, the War Office authorities will, no doubt, be ready to grant the same facilities as we were prepared to have granted with regard to the intended Review at Easter.

  THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT— PRIVATE BILLS.
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course is proposed to be taken with respect to the Committees on Private Bills between this and the Dissolution? I believe that in in some cases the companies and the parties to those Bills have brought up witnesses at great expense; and it is desirable that some arrangement should be made by which quorums may be formed for the purpose of proceeding
  692
  with the various measures. Otherwise there will be great difficulty in getting a quorum of Members to attend these Committees.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to put another one to him. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given any Notice this evening in regard to Public Business, and I should, therefore, like to ask him, whether he intends to make any proposal to the House with reference to what he mentioned yesterday as to the intention of the Government to appropriate some further portion of the time of the House for urgent Government Business?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) I will state, in the first place, that it will be necessary to propose and pass certain Orders with regard to the suspension of Private Bills. I have in my hand the Orders which were passed on the 11th of April, 1859, when a Dissolution was imminent, and those Orders, with some modifications which will be necessary to suit the altered circumstances which have arisen since that time, will be proposed and submitted to the House in the course of a day or two. But these have reference to the resumption in the next Parliament of Private Bills which are suspended, and they do not touch the question to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, as to what should be the proceedings of Committees at the present moment. I apprehend with regard to those, that the case of each Committee will probably differ from that of other Committees. In some cases it may be desirable to complete the inquiry which is pending; while in others it may be desirable to suspend, or not to commence, an inquiry. Probably the best way will be that each Committee should be dealt with upon the merits of the case as represented by the Chairman of the Committee. But I would call attention to a Resolution which was agreed to last Session. It is as follows:—
  "That in case a Committee on any Private Bill or group of such Bills shall report their opinion to the House that any Bill or Bills not yet considered by them should not he entered upon, or that the consideration of any Bill partly considered should not be proceeded with, all further proceedings on such Bill or Bills

  693
  shall be suspended during the present Session."
  Some such Resolution as this will probably be proposed to the House. I will confer with the Chairman of Ways and Means and with the authorities of the House, and I will lose no time in making a Motion on what I know is a most important matter. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, I said last night that I proposed to make a Motion to-day for giving Government Orders precedence on certain days during the remainder of the Session. Of course, I am anxious to interfere as little as possible with the arrangements of the House generally, and, on looking carefully into the position of the different measures which are to be brought forward, I found that there was nothing for to-day of an urgent character. The step which will have to be taken with regard to the Ways and Means Bill is merely a formal one at the end of the evening, and there is no Government Business for to-morrow which could not be well disposed of at the end of Wednesday's Sitting. Therefore, I have had no occasion to ask for either Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. With regard to Friday, however, I think it will be necessary for us to ask the House to sit at 2 o'clock on that day, in order to make progress with our Business. Next week I shall ask for Tuesday and Wednesday. I will give Notice of that.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear up a difference of opinion which has arisen on a matter of some importance. I and other hon. Members understood the right hon. Gentleman to say yesterday that, not only would the House be dissolved on the 23rd instant, but that the Writs would be issued on that day. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to stating precisely when the Writs will issue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the answer which I gave yesterday was that I had stated, some little time ago, that I thought the House would rise on the 23rd instant, and that, as advised, I did not see any reason to depart from that expectation. I still think it probable that the Dissolution will take place on the 23rd; but the day when it is contemplated that the Writs should issue is Wednesday, the 24th.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could afford an opportunity, before the Dissolution, for a discussion on the general situation in Afghanistan?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I will venture to appeal to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who has in charge a Bill on the subject of vaccination, which stands first on the Orders of the Day for to-morrow, and which raises points of some complexity and difficulty. I would ask him, whether he thinks it expedient to proceed with the measure under existing circumstances? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question of the advantages and disadvantages attendant on the use of animal lymph, which have been long engaging the attention of the Local Government Board, are receiving fresh illustration by experiments now going on.
  DR. CAMERON: I think it is perfectly evident that my Bill has no chance of becoming law this Session; and under the circumstances, I am afraid neither the House nor the country would care very much for any discussion which would take place, and which would lose much of its practical character, especially as I understand the Local Government Board is willing to test the proposals I have made. I will not inconvenience the House by going on with it.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR—EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was prevented from being in his place yesterday when the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned a Motion which stood in his name. At the beginning of the Session he was given to understand that the House would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Afghan War. He had now received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a communication to the effect that, should he consider it necessary to bring forward the subject of the expenses of the Afghan War, the most convenient opportunity for raising that question would be on the Report of the Budget Resolutions. He wished to know when that Report

  695
  would be taken; would it be at the Morning Sitting on Friday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, probably, that would be the most convenient time.

MOTIONS.
  TAXATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,in rising to call the attention of the House to the unequal incidence of Imperial Taxation, and to the fact that the gross revenue raised by taxation of Great Britain is equal only to six times and a-half her Income Tax, whilst the gross revenue raised by taxation of Ireland exceeds thirteen times her Income Tax, struck on similar Sechedules and on a like poundage scale to that of Great Britain; and to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report whether there is, as alleged, some and what disparity in the incidence of Imperial Taxation as it affects the several Countries of which the United Kingdom is composed; and whether, in the opinion of the Committee, the circumstances call for any and what changes in the fiscal legislation for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively,"
    said, he proposed to show within what period, and by what means, the state of things described in his Resolution had been brought about. He attributed none of the circumstances of which he complained to the malice prepense, so to speak, of the Ministers concerned, nor to any set designs against Ireland. The Ministers of the day had raised the Revenue as they best could, and they were probably ignorant of the terrible proportion in which they were draining the slender means of the poorer people and sparing the richer. He was not about to base any argument against the present system of taxation on the ground that it violated the Articles of Union, for the Union itself was a gigantic and cruel imposture, set up apparently to be violated whenever Parliament found it convenient to do so. But he complained that a system of taxation had been imposed on Ireland within the last 28 or 30 years in comparison with which the ostensible provisions of the Treaty of Union for the time to come would appear equitable and considerate. He would explain how the case stood.
    696
    The 7th Article of the Treaty of Union provided for the fiscal arrangement between the two Islands. It contemplated three distinct periods of post-Union existence, and it specified the process whereby, after the lapse of 20 years from the Union, the taxation of the two countries should be re-adjusted. The first period was to extend for 20 years, and no longer, from the passing of the Act of Union. The second period was then to commence. Its duration was not pre-arranged. It was to be a period of reviews and revisions, with the object of making adjustments from time to time in the system of taxation, if the circumstances of both countries rendered an adjustment necessary. He would explain presently how it had happened that the second period had never come. The third period contemplated was to date from such time as it appeared to Parliament that there was an actual assimilation of the financial condition of both Islands, so that they might be treated, for purposes of taxation, as if they both constituted one country only. Presumably this third or last period was to be looked forward to as a good time, when England was nearly divested of Debt, and when Ireland, brought up to the level of England by prosperity, could afford to contribute to every Imperial tax on luxuries or necessaries without exception and without abatement. They were now presumably in that condition—that was to say, under an equal and equitable system of taxation; but they knew that such a presumption was a fallacy, for the taxation had been so devised, sparing English predilections and punishing Irish, that whilst the eighth of all assessed British incomes sufficed to pay all Imperial imposts in Great Britain, the fourth of all Irish assessed incomes did not suffice to defray Imperial imposts in Ireland. The provisions made in the Articles of Union for the taxation of Ireland for the first 20 years after that event simply amounted to this—Ireland should be liable to pay two-seventeenths of all Imperial expenses and the interest on the Irish debt of £27,000,000; and, should she not be able to do so, the deficiency should be treated as a debt of Ireland to the English Exchequer. The Article was ingeniously framed; it would appear as if Ireland could be only tied fiscally to the

    697
    bad bargain, if it were one, for 20 years; for exceedingly plausible provisions had been made that a new adjustment of taxation should take place at the end of 20 years, on bases which even now, wore the appearance of equity. It was provided in the 7th Article that at the end of that period the expenditure of the United Kingdom should be defrayed in such proportions as the Parliament of the United Kingdom might deem just and reasonable on a comparison either of the real value of the exports and imports, or of the value of the quantities consumed of beer, spirits, sugar, wine, tea, tobacco, and malt, or according to the aggregate income resulting from both these considerations combined; or, lastly, on a comparison of the amount of income estimated as accruing in each country from a general tax on the same kind of property. There was a perfectly simple basis of taxation; but the other provisions of that Article were not equally satisfactory. He had referred to these provisions of the Articles of Union in order that they might better understand what had been actually done. Ireland had a National Debt in 1800 of £26,841,219, against a British Debt of £420,305,944. By the end of 1816, in consequence of a debt being run up against her in the Imperial Exchequer—that was to say, before the expiration of the first 20 years from the passing of the Act of Union, and before the time contemplated for a revision of the relative tax-bearing abilities of the two countries, the English Ministers had plunged Ireland sufficiently into debt to enable them to show that a parity of indebtedness had been arrived at which entitled them to apply to Parliament for a consolidation of the two Exchequers. The contemplated period of review and re-assessment provided for by the Articles of Union was thus completely overleaped, and Ireland, without any readjustment, was plunged into the abyss of a joint indebtedness without any of those extraordinary resources which enabled England to bear her burden with ease. Ireland would, however, have been able to pay her way without such actual impoverishment as they now witnessed, if the taxes since levied on the United Kingdom had been equitably framed and made to fall on the respective countries after the fashion contemplated by the Articles of Union, and
    698
    which, notwithstanding the consolidation of the Exchequers, might be said to have practically prevailed up to 1852; but it remained for Ministers in those latter days, since 1852, to devise a system of taxation such as had never been contemplated, or, at any rate, had never been expressed by the Ministers who carried the Union, or by those who consolidated the Exchequers of the two countries in 1817. He would explain what had come to pass, by showing how it operated at this moment. The gross annual value of property and profits assessed to the Income Tax under all Schedules, for England and Wales for the year ended 5th April, 1872, was £413,223,690; for Scotland, £42,541,920; together, £455,765,610. The gross annual value under the like Schedules for Ireland amounted to £26,572,707. He did not wish to be omitted from their consideration this fact, that the incomes derived from landed property in Ireland were somewhat under-estimated as compared with the stricter mode of assessment adopted in England, where the valuation for fiscal purposes more nearly approached the rack rent than did the Irish valuation. He desired to leave nothing which could affect the case out of consideration, and he at once admitted that a valuation of the land of Ireland, on the principle applied to the English valuations, would increase somewhat the amount assessable for Income Tax; and if there were no "sot off" to this, such as he would mention, it would alter the proportion of the income of Great Britain to that of Ireland, from 17 to 1, to 15 to 1. But there were, on the other hand, considerations which far outweighed the possible correction he had adverted to. The income under the head of funded property of the United Kingdom was returned under one head as £38,646,360 (Schedule G). He did not, in the figures he had already given, attribute this sum to either Great Britain or Ireland; but had he the means of dissecting it, it would be seen that the sum attributable to British income under that head would be more than 20 times the amount which appertained to Irish, and this alone would, go far to counterpoise any sum which had to be allowed for in respect to an under-valuation of laud in Ireland, as compared with the valuation of land in Great Britain. Another consideration to be taken into

    699
    account was that while in Great Britain there was an immense and generally prosperous wage-earning class, with vast tax-bearing capabilities, there was no corresponding class to represent factory labour in Ireland. In March, 1875, he brought the case of Ireland in respect to Imperial taxation in a somewhat different form before the House, and on that occasion he had to contend against the assumption, propagated under the influence of Dublin Castle, that Ireland was in a prosperous condition. He ventured to say then that there was merely an appearance of prosperity, for the most part illusory, and that one thing only was certain—namely, that Ireland was immensely overtaxed as compared with England. There was no need now to prove that Ireland was in a bad condition. The wretchedness and insolvency of Ireland were household words in India, Australia, Canada, and the United States; in fact in every land in which the English language was spoken. Was not that the state of things at which Ireland had arrived under the direction of an English Government? The immense disparity of wealth was visible wherever a comparison was made. The amount of interest on the Funded Debt payable in London in 1879 was £20,249,979, and that receivable in Ireland was £1,013,173. In 1875 he had compared the Returns of taxation and population for the years 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871. They had not yet completed the decade which brought about a fresh numbering of the population. He would, therefore, have again to refer to the comparative Returns furnished, showing the taxation of the Islands respectively for 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871. He made his case now, as he had made it in 1875, on the basis of the Treasury Return of 7th August, 1874—Parliamentary Paper, No. 407, of that year. No change in the system had been since made. And what did that Return show? It showed that between 1841 and 1871 the population had sunk from 8,175,000 to 5,412,000—that was to say, by upwards of 2,700,000 souls, and that the British Ministers and British Parliament had nevertheless raised the taxation of Ireland from £3,907,238 in 1841 to £7,086,593 in 1871; which meant, in fact, raising 75 per cent additional taxation from a population diminished by 30 per cent; whilst for the
    700
    same period the gross Revenue raised by taxation in Great Britain had not kept pace with the increase of population. He had said the taxation of Great Britain had not grown or kept pace with the increase of the population; but he would put the case much stronger. Between 1841 and 1871 the taxation of Great Britain had diminished 5s. 1d. in respect to each head of the population, and the taxation of Ireland was raised within these same dates—in annual pressure, bear in mind—16s. 7d. for every head of the population of Ireland. He admitted that Her Majesty's present Ministers were not chiefly accountable; but whatever Ministers held power were responsible for whatever injustice might be done, whether by themselves or their Predecessors, if, when pointed out, it was not redressed or redress put in motion. How had this injustice been done? The taxation of alcohol, and alcoholic or intoxicating beverages, was the most fruitful source of revenue in the United Kingdom; and he admitted very properly so. Alcohol was taxed in every form of intoxicating beverage—cider alone excepted—an exception of very little importance, and which he referred to now merely for sake of accuracy. Up to 1852 the duties on those beverages—spirits, wines, and malt drinks—had been respectively struck so that the incidence of the duties had been fairly distributed amongst the three peoples of which the United Kingdom was composed. It was due to his Scotch Friends to admit that, save for the fact that the Scottish people had more of the goods of this life, and were for the present better able to withstand the injustice, the case of Scotland, as against England, was, in the matter of the duties on alcohol, precisely similar to that of Ireland. He would illustrate how the changes had been carried out. In 1852 the duty paid in Ireland on proof spirits, home made, was at the rate of 2s. 8d. per gallon. The duty on wine was 5s. 9d. a-gallon. The wines of Prance—for instance, claret or champagne—paid that duty of 5s. 9d. a gallon. Since then the duty on home made spirits, that was on Irish whisky, had been raised from 2s. 8d. a gallon to 10s.; and the duty on clarets and champagnes had been reduced from 5s. 9d. a-gallon to 1s. That, however, explained only a small portion of the wrong done. The gigantic injustice was that which

    701
    had been done in relation to the popular native beverages of the two countries. The popular alcoholic beverage of England had always been, since the days of Caesar's invasion, beer—that was to say, ale—and all brewed liquors made from malt. When the duty on whisky was 2s. 8d. a-gallon in Ireland the duty on malt was 2s. 8½d. per bushel. The quantity of proof spirit contained in the liquor brewed from a bushel of malt was 1½ gallon; but, as there had been until very lately a duty of 2d. a-pound also paid on the hops used in brewing, there was some approximation to equality in the taxation applied to the respective beverages of the two countries. The English ale drinker had, however, even then, much the best of it, for he consumed his alcohol at a lower rate of taxation than 2s. for every gallon of proof spirits which it contained, whilst the consumer of whisky, whether diluted or not, paid 2s. 8d. duty on every gallon. The disparity had, however—since 1852—been enormously increased. In 1853 the duty was raised on whisky from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d. per gallon, in 1854 from 3s. 4d. to 4s., in 1855 from 4s. to 6s. 2d., in 1858 from 6s. 2d. to 8s., in 1860 from 8s. to 10 s., at which it had remained ever since. All that time there was no corresponding, nor any increase, of the duty which affected the English popular beverage. On what principle of justice, he might ask, were the tastes of the English to be consulted and legislated for, and the predilections of the Irish and Scotch to be marked out for taxation almost immeasurably in excess of the scale applied to the alcoholic stimulants in which the English indulged? If alcoholic stimulants might be lawfully consumed at all, or were proper to be consumed, there must be some forms more suitable to one country than to another. Whisky was the form in which alcohol was found most suitable to the Irish and Scotch. It no doubt had a great deal to do with climate. Arthur Young wrote thus of Ireland more than 100 years ago—
    "The worst circumstances of the climate is a moisture without rain. Wet a piece of leather and lay it in a room where there is neither sun nor Are; and it will not, in summer even, he dry for a month. I have known gentlemen in Ireland deny their climate being moister than England; but if they have eyes let them open them, and see the verdure that clothes their rocks, and compare it with ours in England
    702
    where rocky soils are of a russet brown, however sweet the food for sheep. Does not their island lie more exposed to the great Atlantic? and does not the west wind blow three-fourths of the year?"
    It could not, however, with truth be said that the Irish were greater lovers of alcohol than the English, and therefore desired to take it in its more concentrated form; for, notwithstanding the strength of whisky as compared to beer, the English consumed more alcohol than either the Scotch or Irish. The consumption in all forms was, for each head of the population in England and Wales, 4 gallons 72 hundredths; for each in Scotland, 3 gallons 64 hundredths; for each in Ireland, 2 gallons 49 hundredths. But owing to the English running more on beer and wine than the Irish or Scotch, they consumed the equivalent of a gallon of proof spirits on payment of an average duty of 3s. 10 d., whereas the Scotch paid an average duty of 7s. 1¾d., and the Irish an average duty of 6s. 7¼d. per gallon. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would now come to his final proofs. In 1871 the gross amount raised by taxation in Great Britain was £57,534,683, whereof £8,789,485 was Income Tax, showing that the gross taxation barely exceeded six times and a-half the Income Tax; whilst the gross taxation of Ireland was £7,086,593, whereof only £538,617 was Income Tax, showing that there was a gross Imperial taxation levied off Great Britain equal to only six times and a-half her Income Tax whilst there was a gross Imperial taxation levied off Ireland equal to more than 13 times her Income Tax. He ventured to say that if the income of the wage-earning taxpayers could be added to the incomes of Great Britain, and the like done in respect to the wage-earning class in Ireland, the actual disparity would appear still greater than it did on a comparison of the assessed incomes only. He might add, in conclusion, that he had endeavoured not to treat the question as a Home Rule question; but what greater argument could be adduced in favour of Home Rule than a belief on the part of the Irish people that the present system of taxation was irreversible? He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to granting him the Committee for which he now moved.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERseconded the Motion. He had long regretted that

    703
    this branch of the Irish question had not received more attention from Parliament and the bulk of Irish Representatives themselves. The last days of an expiring Parliament, however, did not, perhaps, furnish the best opportunity of discussing a question of this magnitude. Still, he trusted they would succeed in attracting the attention of the electors of both Great Britain and Ireland to the subject, and that when candidates claimed the suffrages that the electors would put questions to them with respect to the present unequal taxation. The unequal incidence of Imperial taxation in Ireland had always seemed to him a great misfortune. His hon. Friend had shown that one of the evil results flowing from the Legislative Union of England with Ireland was that the latter country, which was notoriously poor, had been forced into financial partnership with England, which was notoriously a rich country. By the amalgamation of the National Debts of Ireland and Great Britain, Ireland was not only made responsible for the Debt incurred by England in prosecuting war upon the Continent, but made responsible for pre-Union Debts, and the country had suffered considerably in consequence. No wonder that his hon. Friend, had been able to show that the first 17 years of the Union swelled the Irish Debt from £28,000,0000 sterling to £112,000,000. The Irish Members contended that the alcohol in beer and spirits should be taxed alike; and they, therefore, called upon their Scotch fellow-citizens to join them in a united crusade against the maintenance by the English Representatives—England being the largest and most powerful of the three countries—of an injustice which pressed alike on Scotland and Ireland. He should be very glad if Her Majesty's Government were able to announce their readiness to grant the Select Committee of Inquiry that had been asked for in the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report whether there is, as alleged, some and what disparity in the incidence of Imperial Taxation as it affects the several Countries of which the United Kingdom is composed; and whether, in the opinion of the Committee, the circumstances call for any and what changes in the fiscal legislation for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
    MR. M'LARENsaid, the matter as regarded spirits had been gone into so very carefully and elaborately by his hon. Friend who moved this Motion, that he would say very little about it, although it was a question he had studied with great attention. Referring to the Revenue accounts for the last year, he said that the duties on British spirits consumed in England amounted to £8,250,000, the duties on spirits consumed in Scotland were £3,204,000, and in Ireland £3,000,000. The result was, that Scotland and Ireland paid between them £6,200,000 for their 9,000,000 of people, while England paid £8,200,000 for about 24,000,000 of people. Scotland and Ireland, therefore, paid nearly three times as much per head as was paid by England. He thought nothing could be more unjust than that. As to the idea of beer being a more sober drink than spirits, he did not believe it was anything of the kind. He knew that some of the first physicians of the present day advocated that aged people should take half a glass of spirits in water, in place of a couple of glasses of wine, stating it would be better for their health. It was an undeniable fact that there was a very much larger amount of alcohol consumed per head in England than in Ireland or Scotland, yet England paid much less for the amount of alcohol contained in its drink. It got alcohol mixed with more water, and with some colouring matter, and called by another name than whisky—beer—upon which a less duty was paid than if that alcohol had been contained in whisky. But he had yet to learn that the beer drinkers, compared with the whisky drinkers in Scotland, were more sober. In fact, the drunkenness produced by beer seemed to assume a more savage form than anything he had ever heard of in Scotland or Ireland. He held, therefore, that there was nothing whatever in the moral aspect of the question that should make them favour beer drinking rather than whisky drinking. His hon. Friend's statement had made the question appear to the disadvantage of Scotland in one particular. He omitted to make an allowance for the great amount of smuggling that took place in Ireland—no duty, of course, being paid on the smuggled liquor—with the comparatively small amount of smuggling that took place in Scotland. The disparity was

    705
    proved by the offences within the last few years, for the number of Excise prosecutions for smuggling had been about 700 a-year in Ireland, while the number was less than 10 in Scotland. Altogether, it appeared to him (Mr. M'Laren) that a case had been made out for a full and fair inquiry. A rough-and-ready way of stating the matter was, that for every Is. paid for the alchohol contained in malt liquors, 5s. 6d. was paid for the same quantity of alcohol contained in whisky. It came to this, that the liquor upon which 1s. of duty was paid in Scotland or Ireland might intoxicate one man, whereas the liquor upon which Is. of duty was paid in England, if that liquor was in the shape of beer, would intoxicate five and a-half men, because there were five and a-half times the quantity of alcohol in the beer on which Is. duty would be paid that there was in the whisky on which an equal duty would be paid. While he supported the inquiry that was proposed, he was not able to agree to the fundamental principle of the Resolution, which took the amount of Income Tax as the standard of proportion for other taxation. It might do if the Income Tax was levied exactly in the same way in all the countries; but it had been admitted by his hon. Friend that it was not levied in the same way. In England, the Income and Property Tax was levied very nearly on the rack-rental. In Ireland there was a considerable modification. The hon. Member did not say anything about how it was levied in Scotland; but the fact was, that in Scotland the Income and Property Tax was levied on the full rack-rent, and the valuation was so stringent that not only was the tenant bound to return his rack-rent annually under a penalty of £20, but the landlord got a schedule, and was also bound to make a return thus to check the tenant. The effect of that was, that year by year the taxation of Scotland in reference to income and property grew to a very large extent; but he was informed that in Ireland property in Dublin and Belfast, and other towns, was valued at an amount greatly below the real value or the rent that was paid. There had been produced that day a Return at his (Mr. M'Laren's) instance, showing the amount of the Income Tax in every county and every borough in the United Kingdom; and in looking over some of the statements
    706
    contained in it, he could not help being struck with the extraordinary discrepancies which existed. For example, Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000, was so valued that its Income Tax for the last year amounted to £117,000. Scotland, with a population of 3,500,000, paid an Income Tax amounting to £323,000. The House would remember that he was not speaking of the nominal tax, but of the actual amount raised. Scotland, like England, also paid the House Duty, whereas Ireland paid none. The House Duty of Scotland last year was £65,000. That might also be considered Income Tax, because as men's incomes increased they removed to better houses. Therefore, they might take the two together, and say that Scotland last year paid £389,000 of Income Tax, whereas Ireland only paid £117,000. It might, perhaps, give the House a more vivid idea of the disproportion than by merely naming large sums, if he mentioned that the total Income Tax of Dublin last year was £57,200; Belfast, one of the most thriving towns in the three Kingdoms, paid £25,000; Cork, £10,900; and Limerick, £3,700. The aggregate amount was £97,000. But look how unjustly Edinburgh, which he had the honour to represent, was taxed compared with these towns. It paid last year £73,693, and £24,000 for House Duty, while for the latter in Dublin and Belfast nothing was paid. The population of Edinburgh at last Census was 196,000, while Dublin had a population of 267,000. The House must remember that Dublin was a wealthy city, and swarmed with office-holders paid by the Government out of the national taxation of England and Scotland. He thoroughly agreed with the demand made by the hon. Member, that the taxation of spirits and other things should be put on the same footing in the Three Kingdoms. He would say no more than to remark that England had had the advantage not only of squeezing Ireland to a degree that was unjust, but that it had done the same thing to Scotland, and had even violated the Treaty and Act of Union in a very flagrant way. At the Union, it was agreed that Scotland should only pay £48,000 of Land Tax to the £2,000,000 of Land Tax paid by England, and that that proportion should continue to the end of time to regulate all direct taxes. Thus Scot-

    707
    land was to pay £1 for every £41 paid by England, but England had now made Scotland pay in the proportion of 1 to 9, instead of 1 to 41. So, that while England had certainly oppressed the smaller country of Ireland in the manner complained of, she had still further oppressed the still smaller country of Scotland.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that he had ventured to call the attention of the House to this subject two years ago, and had pointed out that the Revenue during the past 20 years had been derived to a much larger amount from indirect taxation and to a smaller amount from direct taxation. The working classes now paid a larger proportion than the wealthy classes, and the wealthy classes a smaller proportion than they did 20 years ago. The hon. Member for Youghal, (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), had made a very able speech, and had, no doubt, made out his case; but he (Mr. W. Holms) considered that Scotland had a similar complaint to mate to that which was made for Ireland. Scotland, with a population of 3,352,000, paid £3,279,000 on spirits; while Ireland, with a population of 5,363,000, paid £3,050,000. If the position of Ireland and Scotland combined were contrasted with that of England, it would be found that England ought to pay one-third more than it did at present, or something like £8,000,000 more. In dealing with this question, it was necessary to see not only how it affected one particular class of taxation, but to look at the incidence of taxation, from whatever source that taxation might be derived; if it was shown that Ireland paid a smaller proportion than England and Scotland on one particular class of article, then the hon. Member for Youghal was bound to show how he would make up for the loss arising from adjusting that particular article of taxation. He (Mr. W. Holms) found, from the Returns issued last year, that England contributed to the Revenue 42 s. per head, Scotland 43 s. 4d., and Ireland 24 s. Not only did Ireland produce a much smaller amount per head, but the total amount paid by Ireland was considerably less than that paid by Scotland. Scotland, having a population two-thirds less than that of Ireland, contributed £7,844,000, while Ireland only contributed £6,499,000. It appeared to him that taxation and repre-
    708
    sentation should go together. It was a question how far Ireland was represented in proportion to its taxation, and how far Scotland was represented in proportion to her taxation. If they looked at the amount contributed by Scotland, they would find that Scotland ought to have 78 Members in the House, and Ireland, according to the amount paid, should have 64 Members. Under the present condition of things, however, Ireland had 105 Members and Scotland only 60. He was willing that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the question of the incidence of taxation; and he would be still better pleased to have an inquiry instituted as to how far taxation was represented in the House of Commons.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the subject to which the attention of the House had been called was not now brought forward for the first time, the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) having himself called attention to it on a previous occasion. On this occasion, however, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) did not see that the hon. Member had been able to produce any new arguments in support of his position. The hon. Member complained, as the complaint always had been, that the incidence of taxation was unequal, and that Ireland was placed at a disadvantage as compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom, being taxed more heavily than they were in proportion to her population and resources. Going into the history of the arrangements which had taken place as between Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, the hon. Member had pointed out that in the old times there was a separate system of Exchequer and Accounts for Great Britain and Ireland. That system was done away with, and a general system of taxation was initiated. The liabilities contracted by Ireland under the Act of Union would, practically, have crushed her; but, as the hon. Member was aware, in the year 1815–16, the Irish Debt, resulting from the transaction, was swept away, and the Irish Exchequer merged into that of England; so that the taxation of the two countries became common. Now, that being so, it was hardly fair on the part of Irishmen to allege that they were unduly oppressed. Rather, they stood at an advantage, for England

    709
    paid into the Imperial Exchequer taxes which did not fall in the same way upon Ireland—namely, the Railway Duty, the Licence Tax, the House Duty, the Land Tax, Medical Stamps, and the Dog Tax. He was not prepared to say that if a particular class of the community could show that there was a case of unjust or oppressive taxation, it was not a subject for consideration; but he could not see how it was possible to get away from the principle which had been laid down, that the taxation should, with the exceptions to which he had referred, be universal for the whole of the United Kingdom. It had not been shown that the taxation of individuals was excessive in Ireland as compared with England and Scotland. Every tax applied equally to Englishmen and Scotchmen as to Irishmen, only that in the case of Ireland there were exemptions which were unknown to England and Scotland. Beyond that, whilst the proportion of Revenue contributed by Ireland was about one-twelfth of the total, it should not be forgotten, as another item of the account, that in regard to local reliefs, which formed a large branch of the subject, Ireland enjoyed a very considerable advantage over the other parts of the United Kingdom. In fact, those reliefs, in the case of Ireland, amounted to something like 33 per cent. The whole matter came to this—that there was no tax imposed upon Ireland the burden of which was not shared by Englishmen and Scotchmen, while there were some taxes imposed upon England and Scotland which were not borne by the Irish people. If a different system of taxation were to be adopted, in accordance with the principle of the hon. Member for Youghal's Resolution, the result would be that, on the same principle, different parts, not only of the United Kingdom, but of the same country, would demand exceptional treatment in exceptional circumstances. Ireland would not be alone in asking that she should be treated exceptionally, and they would have similar demands from the poorer districts of England and Scotland. Once they departed from the principle that each individual should pay the same amount of taxation, wherever he resided, they would have other claims than those of Ireland, equally sound on the principle of exemption advocated by the hon. Member for Youghal. The inconvenience, there-
    710
    fore, of departing from the sound principle that the same system of taxation must be applied to every individual would be manifest. Then it had been urged that, owing to the national beverage, Ireland was much more heavily taxed than beer-drinking England was. It must, however, be remembered that, although a large quantity of whisky might be made in Ireland, the bulk of it was consumed elsewhere, and that the incidence of the tax upon the beverage fell not on the manufacturer, but on the consumer.
    MR. M'LARENpointed out, that the figures which he quoted appeared in the Inland Revenue Returns just issued relating to the quantity of whisky consumed, and not merely to the quantity manufactured in Ireland and Scotland.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was referring to the figures which appeared in another Return which had been presented in the course of the present Session, and which related to the quantity of whisky manufactured. The Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal asserted that the gross Revenue raised in Great Britain was only equal to six-and-a-half times its Income Tax, whereas that of Ireland was equal to 13 times her Income Tax. It must be remembered, however, that nothing could be more fallacious than arguments based upon the amount of the Income Tax of a particular locality. Thus, for instance, Income Tax was paid upon enormous sums in the City of London, in which the dividends of the Bank of England and the interest on Foreign Stocks were paid, although the money was actually spent elsewhere. It was, therefore, a mistake to assume that because the Income Tax of Ireland was levied upon an apparently small amount of income, the actual income of her population was equally limited. Another fact worthy of observation was, that the assessment for the Income Tax was lower in Ireland than it was in England and Scotland. On the ground, therefore, that it was essential that they should have one system of taxation applicable equally to every member of the community, he felt it to be his duty to resist this Motion.
    MR. SYNANadmitted, that if the Committee asked for were appointed, it would have difficulties to contend with; but it was because of the difficulties that surrounded this question that he felt

    711
    that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into them. He considered that the hon. Baronet was historically and financially wrong in his estimate of the causes which had led to the present state of things. The amount which was settled by the Act of Union as the proportion which Ireland ought to pay of the Debt of the United Kingdom was admitted by the Committee of 1866 to be an unjust and unfair proportion. The consequence was that Ireland was unable to pay it, and in 1816 the country became bankrupt, and the Exchequer was consolidated with that of England, which was just what Ireland did not want. Coming to the question immediately before the House, he (Mr. Synan) said that the argument of the hon. Baronet, as he understood it, was that so far as individuals in Ireland were concerned they had nothing more to complain of than individuals in England or Scotland; that the taxation was either the same as in those countries, or was something in their favour. Well, but that showed a total misconception of the whole thing. What was the source of taxation? It was not in relation to individuals, but to the resources of the land and the commodities and commerce of the country. He argued that, from whatever point of view the Motion was regarded, the argument was conclusive in favour of a Committee. But, then, it had been hinted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), that the result of the Committee, should it be appointed, might be injurious to Ireland financially, and that taxes might be imposed upon that country to which it was not at present subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was quite prepared to accept that risk. There would be no difficulty in reducing the tax upon whisky in Ireland to the level of the tax upon malt in England. It was not a differential duty; it was a positive tax, and it might be equalized over the three countries. Surely Scotland and Ireland were entitled to the same protection in respect of that manufacture as England received in regard to malt. The foundation of the present grievance was that in Ireland a tax was imposed upon a particular kind of property, which it was not imposed upon in England, and that was an injustice. Again, the taxation imposed upon Ireland was greater in pro-
    712
    portion to her ability to pay than that imposed upon England. How was it that whisky in Ireland was taxed at the rate of 10 s. per gallon, while beer in England was taxed at 2s. per gallon? Was not that a fair subject of inquiry? Then, as to the relative wealth of the two countries, the taxation of Ireland was 13 times as great as that of England. It was idle to say that Ireland received local aids. She had local aids only for Imperial purposes. Then it was urged that Assessed Taxes were not imposed upon Ireland. Why were they not? Because they would yield nothing, and would not even pay the cost of collection. It was true that the Income Tax was imposed in Ireland upon a valuation of the land; but there was not a shadow of difference now between the valuation and the rent of property in Ireland, although he admitted that a few years ago there was a difference of about 20 per cent. But these were all matters for inquiry, and he hoped, therefore, the House would agree to the appointment of the Committee moved for.
    MR. STORERsaid, he did not think a case had been made out either for Ireland or Scotland, for Ireland certainly was far less heavily taxed than England and Scotland. In England the people paid £2 5s. per head in taxation, and the Scotch people a little over £2 per head; while the Irish people paid only about £1 per head. The Irish Members were always asking for equality in the matter of the franchise, and also in other concerns; but he never found them asking for equality in taxation. They always found it convenient to forget what the Returns proved, that they paid no House Tax, no Assessed Taxes, no Railway Tax, &c.; also, that under Schedule B the farmers of Scotland and Ireland paid only three farthings where the English occupier paid one penny. Why that should be the case he was at a loss to conceive. The hon. Member who had just spoken objected to any reference being made to the grants in aid to Ireland; but he must be told of it. The grants in aid made from the Imperial Exchequer were a very important item, and they were increasing every year, and a reference to the Estimates would show that the great increase was in grants made to Ireland, for which, he must say, the Irish Members exhibited little gratitude either to the national taxpayers or

    713
    to the Government. He thought that hon. Members opposite had better let the matter sleep, for it was possible that, if the Committee were granted, they would have to pay more taxation than at present.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmaintained that Scotland was much more highly taxed than England, as would be shown by a reference to the statistics of the population. Proportionally, the people of Scotland paid more into the Exchequer than did the people of England; and the only apparent exception was the single case of Schedule B of the Income Tax. That, however, was not because the taxation was less; but because of different circumstances, and in no respect was Scotland favoured. He agreed that there was no ground for distinction in levying a tax on beer, as compared to that on whisky. In Scotland, no doubt, a great deal of whisky was drunk, but beer was as injurious as whisky. A working man in Scotland might get drunk once or twice a-year on whisky. In England, many a man got muddled every day on beer; and where could they find a reason in these facts for taxing one higher than the other? The truth was, that there was the large brewery interest in England, which owned the public-houses. His complaint was not that whisky was taxed too much, but that beer was taxed too little. He admitted that such an injurious drink as whisky should be taxed in a higher degree. The system of raising Revenue by this mode of taxation was eminently successful, and there was no reason why an additional tax should not be raised from beer, except that Parliament dared not impose such a tax. They did not dare to tax those monopolies that he had referred to. If Parliament only took courage, they might raise such a tax on beer as would enable them to remit the taxes on the innocent luxuries of the people which still remained taxed, such as tea and coffee and plum-pudding. In doing this, they would be acting justly to England, and would be removing an injustice from Scotland and Ireland.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,in reply, contended that the Irish and Scotch were constitutionally, or by circumstances of climate and dietary, indisposed or incapacitated to drink their alcohol in the form of beer instead of spirit. The
    714
    English consumed more alcohol than the Irish or Scotch. There was no morality in getting drunk on beer as compared with getting drunk on spirit; one was as bad as the other. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to have overlooked the fact that this was not a question about any special exemption of Ireland from certain taxes. If the position of Ireland, as compared with that of England was such as he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had described it, although the former was exempt from certain taxes paid by Great Britain, then so much the worse—the incidence of the taxes which she did pay were only so much the more unfair, for the grievance did not hinge on any particular tax, but on the total of all the taxes. In 1841 each member of the population of Ireland paid in taxation something over 9s., and by 1851, owing to deaths and emigration, as the result of the Famine years, that amouut was raised to 12 s. 2d. upon those who remained. He was at a loss to know what had occurred to Ireland since 1841 which should enable each member of her population to pay more taxes than he did in that year. Nobody was found in 1841 to assert that Ireland paid much less than she could afford to pay. But the monster injustice was done to Ireland between 1851 and 1871, when new taxes were laid on and an additional levy of 16 s. 7d. a-year per head raised from her during the same period when the gross taxation was actually reduced 5s. 7d. for each head of the population of Great Britain. If a man was a strong man, he could allow a leech to remain on him for a time without sustaining any injury, but the question was how many days he could bear it. It was a question how much taxation poor Ireland could bear without reducing her to starvation. The difference of taxation in 1851 and 1871 imposed on Ireland had been, in proportion, a greater burden than the contribution which France had to pay Germany at the end of the late war. He was disappointed in being compelled to go to a division, having trusted that the Government would promise inquiry if they continued in Office, as they probably would, after the General Election.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 58: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 38.)

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (COMPENSATION FOR INJURY).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. RAIKES,in rising to call attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on Railway Accidents, respecting Compensation to Railway Servants injured in the performance of their duty; and to move—
  "That the exceptional character of the services performed and dangers incurred by Railway Servants in the discharge of their duty calls for the immediate and special attention of Her Majesty's Government; and that this House is of opinion that a change in the Law is required, by which, notwithstanding the legal doctrine of common employment, adequate compensation shall be secured to Railway Servants in all cases of injury to which they have not personally contributed."
  said: In introducing the important Resolution which I venture to bring forward to-night, I am, I hope, fully sensible of the very great difficulty of the large question which may appear to be raised by it, as well as of the delicacy required in endeavouring to separate from that large question the particular matter to which I desire to direct the attention of this House. It is a subject which must be approached with great care, with very grave consideration, and, if I may venture to say so, with perfect temper; and although I do not find upon the Notice Paper evidence that this perfect command of temper is absolutely universal, I shall endeavour in such remarks as I have to make to address myself simply to the question of public interest, and to consider the matter as if no such thing existed on the face of the earth as either the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), or the Amendment of which he has given Notice. The special grounds which, as it appears to me, entitle this House and those who have studied the question to separate the case of the railway servants from the ordinary employés in other pursuits are briefly these—The first of them is, that the Railway Companies, whose liability is our present consideration, are virtually possessed of an enormous monopoly—the greatest monopoly which has ever existed in this country. Their possession of that monopoly is, I believe, entirely for the public advantage, and that is not a matter on which I desire to provoke any public controversy. I shall be one of the first to acknowledge that the way in which they have administered
  716
  the great interests entrusted to their charge has been satisfactory, and that they have been actuated quite as much by public as by private motives in the performance of their obligations. But, in reality, the Railway Companies of this country are the possessors of a practical monopoly of the carrying trade, both in regard to passengers and goods, and that fact appears to me to place them in a perfectly different position from any other trader who does not fulfil the same conditions. When we come to examine the origin of this monopoly, we find that in every particular case it has been created by statute. The Railway Companies are the creatures of Parliament. The property which they possess, the powers which they exercise, the rights which they enjoy, the profits which they receive, are, all of them, created, regulated, and directed by the action of the Legislature. I do not know that there is any other commercial enterprize in this Empire which is at all to be compared with them in this respect, unless you take, perhaps, the case of some of the Gas and Tramway Companies. No doubt, there are other public companies which exercise similar rights under statute. No doubt, there are Water Companies and other bodies which enjoy the same powers; but it is not the universal rule that these Gas Companies or Water Companies are created by the action of Parliament. We are, all of us, familiar with Companies of that description, which are not in any way based upon Acts of Parliament; and although the rule may be that they come to Parliament for compulsory powers, which it is convenient for them to have, it cannot be said that the water enterprize or the gas enterprize of this country depends, as the railway enterprize does, wholly on the sanction and initiative of Parliament. Well, Sir, I think that having stated these two distinctive characteristics of the railway enterprize of this country, I shall have made out my case for regarding it from a somewhat different point of view from that of other employers of labour, whose trades have grown up with the growth of the nation, and have been practised from the earliest days, not merely of our history, but of all civilization. I think there is, however, a more important consideration still behind. If it were to be shown that any other body possessed the same mo-

  717
  nopoly, and a monopoly created in the same manner, it would, I think, be exceedingly difficult for any such body—and I do not know of one that could put in the same claim—it would be exceedingly difficult for such a body to occupy the same position in regard to the public safety as that which is occupied by our Railway Companies. The Railway Companies are the custodians of a great deal of removable property. Her Majesty's subjects travel in every part of the Empire in enormous numbers by their means. They take, I should be the first to confess, extraordinary and most successful precautions to protect the lives and limbs of those of whom they have the care; but the fact is, I think, indisputable that they are more concerned in preserving the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects than any other industry that exists in the country. I shall be told, perhaps, that mines are much more frequently the cause of death and injury to the persons employed in them than railways; but, so far as mines are concerned, they affect only the persons employed. They do not affect the lives or the personal safety of persons who are not in actual employment in them. Therefore, the position which I wish to take up tonight is, that the change of the law I am desirous of recommending is not merely a matter of the interest and the advantage of the railway servants, but that it is, in a very large degree, a matter of public interest, and that public interest is very greatly concerned in the better and more effectual protection of the lives and limbs of the servants of the Railway Companies. It is very easy to regard this question either from the point of view of a railway director or a railway servant, and nothing can be more convenient than to take either of those views. But I do not ask the House to approach the matter from one point of view or the other. If I were merely endeavouring to make out a case—and I think a very strong case might be made out—from the point of view of the interests of the railway servants, I should not, at all events, satisfy myself. What I wish this House to see in the course of the discussion is that this is a matter not merely in the interests of the railway servants, but of the interest of the public, which is inseparable from the due protection and security of those who serve them on railways. Well, Sir, the particular Re-
  718
  port to which I desire to draw attention is the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Railway Accidents, which was issued in the year 1877. And the recommendation to which I wish to draw attention is, that in which they point out that, in spite of the doctrine of common employment, a case to their satisfaction has been made out for granting compensation for injury to railway servants in such cases as those in which the injuries might be occasioned by persons exercising delegated authority. I ask for particular attention to the words "delegated anthority," because in those words lies the whole gist of the matter. The Commissioners, in 1877, made a general Report, and I am bound to say that one of the Commissioners, Mr. Harrison, who, I believe, was placed on the Commission as the special representative of the Railway Companies, and to whose entire fitness for the office the railway servants themselves bear full testimony—Mr. Harrison dissented from this part of the Report. The Commissioners were inclined to find in the condition of the railway servants a special ground of hardship in the doctrine of common employment, and they had put the matter, so far as that claim was concerned, on the ground of the remoteness of the connection between employer and employed. I think Mr. Harrison, in his Report, has shown that this is a ground which applies to all other important industries, and, in fact, to the service of all Companies. But there was another Report, a Report by Mr. Gait, who also was a Member of the Royal Commission, and who, having concurred in this particular recommendation to which I call attention, added a supplementary Report which covered all the ground, and in which occur these very remarkable words. He says—
  "There is another point of view from which we may consider this subject—that of the public interest, apart from those of the railway servant. The interests of the Companies, no doubt, are, to a limited extent, identical with those of the public. It would not he to their interest to neglect the means of safety to such an extent as that the amount paid for compensation would exceed the sum necessary for the safe management of their traffic; hut, on the other hand, it is obviously their interest to avoid the heavy expense they would incur in making such changes conducive to safety in their management as have been recommended, where the cost of such changes would exceed the sum paid for compensation. The nearer the interests of the Companies can be approximated to those of the

  719
  public, the management of the Companies will he proportionately better, and their liability to compensation as regards their servants must naturally have a tendency towards the attainment of that object. It may, no doubt, be said that compensation to servants, including the compensation to passengers in such cases as I have suggested, would fall very far short of the sum that would be required to effect the improvements recommended by the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. That, no doubt, is the case; but still it would be a step in the right direction, and would, to some extent, lessen the divergence of interests now existing between the Companies and the public."
  Now, Sir, I think it will be clear that the view which I have endeavoured, as well as I could, to put before the House is one very much better stated by Mr. Gait in his supplementary Report. He takes the ground that the public interest is closely identified with the improvement of the existing relations between the railway servants and their employers, and that these, therefore, possess a claim to consideration. Lord De La Warr has also published a separate Report. Since that time Lord De La Warr has been very active in making legislative proposals on this question. In the other House of Parliament Lord De La Warr has, on more than one occasion, propounded a Bill for dealing with all employés on the basis of the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners—namely, that of delegated authority. He introduced a Bill into the House of Lords last year. There is a Bill propounded by the same noble Lord before the House of Lords this year. There was a Bill before this House last year, brought in by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) which substantially affirmed the same principle, although it was expressed in slightly different language. I admit that the difficulty of the position has not been greatly reduced by the introduction of these two measures, and I will tell the House why. The Government, last year, introduced a Bill dealing with the general liability of employers. That Bill was introduced into this House. It was based, I believe, mainly upon the recommendations of a Committee of this House which sat in the previous year, although it does not embody the views of the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Mr. Lowe), who proposed, in his Report, a very much bolder, and, I think, a more satisfactory mode of
  720
  dealing with the question than that which was adopted by the Committee. But the Government introduced their measure, and their measure was that a liability should rest upon public Companies or upon employers generally for the acts of any superintending official as distinguished from the acts of any persons possessing "delegated authority." People not acquainted with the subject may say they fail to grasp the full difference between the two positions; but I think it will be apparent to anybody as soon as the subject is explained. The object was to meet the case of all employments, and I am not prepared to say that the Government could have gone further in dealing with the case of many or most employments. It is exceedingly difficult to introduce any change into recognized law, and particularly in regard to a system which has come to be one of the conditions of our commercial enter-prize, and which must affect all the industries of the land. I do not blame the Government for having stopped short at enforcing the liability of employers at the point of a superintendent official when they came to deal with employés generally. On the other hand, I am disposed to think that Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings were right as far as the railway interest was concerned, although I cannot fail to see the difficulty of applying their principle to all commercial undertakings generally. I think that while the principle of Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings might be thoroughly applicable to the case of railway servants alone, embodying as it does, in a legitimate form, the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, I should not be prepared to say that it would be well for the commercial enterprize of the Kingdom at large if such a measure were made the basis of a general change of the law. Therefore, it is without any intentional disrespect to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), that I have been particularly anxious to bring the case of the railway servants specially before the House, because I think that if we take action upon the recommendations of the Railway Accidents Commission under the special circumstances to which I have adverted, it may be comparatively easy to deal with the question as regards the railway servants. In this instance, you would be supported by the

  721
  recommendation of the Commissioners, while I admit that it would be a matter of extraordinary difficulty to proceed on the same lines in regard to the liability of employers generally. I have been pressed to postpone the consideration of this question until the general question of employers' liability could be considered, and therefore it is that I have been particularly anxious to avail myself of this opportunity of pointing out how far I think this particular interest is to be severed from other interests. Having indicated, then, what seems to me to be the confusion engendered by the rival projects, I would ask the House to consider for a moment the Memorials presented by the railway servants to the Royal Commission, upon which the Royal Commissioners proceeded to come to the conclusion which I have stated. There were two Memorials before the Royal Commissioners. The first was one presented by the inspectors, engine-drivers, firemen, guards, shunters, pointsmen, porters, and platelayers employed on British railways; and, among other things, it says—
  "These Returns, which are by the Companies classed under the latter head, we contend are in many instances put down to erroneous causes."
  Perhaps, before I come to this, I had better state that there are Returns, issued by the Board of Trade, which classify the deaths caused to railway servants as well as to passengers, according to the circumstances of each particular case, and state whether the persons injured or killed were in any way responsible for the accident. There is, however, a question between the employés, who have presented this Memorial, and the Railway Companies who employ them, as to how far the Returns presented by the Companies, returning as they do only a small portion of deaths and injuries as being occasioned by causes beyond the control of the persons killed or injured, are absolutely correct. I do not think there is any intention on the part of the railway servants to impute to the Railway Companies any desire to misrepresent the facts, or to give inaccurate Returns. But, in dealing with any question of this sort, it is quite clear that there may be differences of opinion as to the circumstances which led to a particular death; and it is not, I think, much to be wondered at that
  722
  many cases should be put down by the Railway Companies as having been caused by their servants' default,?which the servants, on the other hand, think were caused by the default of the Companies. For instance, there are cases of death which have occurred among railway servants where the death did not occur until some time subsequent to the accident which occasioned it. If death takes place at once, a Coroner's jury sits, an inquest is held, a verdict is returned, and a man is reported to have been killed, either by his own fault or the fault of somebody else, as the case may be. But if the man is only injured, he may linger for months before he absolutely dies; but the death is due equally to the effects of the accident. Of such deaths no notice appears in these Returns. It is exceedingly probable, therefore, that without the smallest wish on the part of the Railway Companies to misrepresent the facts, there may be a considerable percentage of deaths and of injury which may have been caused by circumstances over which the parties most concerned had no control, although, in the eye of the Company, they were not occasioned by any fault on their part. I will now read an extract from the Memorial. The Memorialists say—
  "These Returns, which are by the Companies classed under the latter head, we contend are in many instances put down to erroneous causes, and that in the majority of cases they are occasioned—1, by excessive hours of labour; 2, by the non-enforcement of certain of the Companies' rules ostensibly made for our protection; 3, by non-adaptation of the most approved appliances conducive to safety in the working of railways; 4, by the want of proper accommodations in working the traffic; 5, by the insufficient number of men employed."
  Well, Sir, as I have said, there is a second Memorial. The second Memorial was presented from the railway servants generally. In that Memorial it is stated—
  "By the Return of accidents to railway servants published by the Board of Trade, it is shown that 765 railway servants were killed and 3,618 were injured in the year 1875, and we venture to assert that of this number a very large proportion were so killed or injured from causes within the power of the Companies to prevent. Yet the sufferers have no legal claim for compensation, nor are the Railway Companies held responsible by the law for, or compelled to remove the causes of such accidents. We feel convinced that until a due responsibility for the safety of the servants be placed on the Railway

  723
  Companies, by making' them liable for the loss occasioned to their servants by preventible accidents, there "will be little diminution in the number of railway servants yearly killed or injured. We, therefore, beg that the Commission will recommend to Parliament such an alteration in the law relating to the liability of employers for injuries to their servants as will make Railway Companies justly responsible to their servants."
  I am very sorry, Sir, to be obliged to address the House at this length upon this question; but it is one of very great interest and of very great importance to the real welfare of the country. Therefore, I will venture to give the House two extracts—two only, and they are not very long ones—from the evidence of the railway servants who were examined before the Commissioners. The evidence of James Bridgeman is to be found at page 67 of the Royal Commission. Bridgeman was an engine-driver on the Rhymney line, and I give this extract in order to show what the railway servants say with respect to the danger to themselves occasioned by excessive labour. James Bridgeman, an engine-driver on the Rhymney line, said—
  "I have been four years in the employment of the Company; on day duty a fair average of our ordinary hours of labour is from 13 to 17 or 18 hours, and at night 14 hours. The longest time I have worked in one week was 109 hours: that was in six days."
  Almost as bad as the case of a Member of Parliament.
  "I did no work on Sunday. That was not an exceptional case. In winter it is a continual thing, because there are so many delays, and we have such inclines to work from, snow, and other things, which block us up. We say to the boys who come to call us to go out on duty—'We shall not go out to-day,' and they say we must go out, and if we refuse we stand the chance of being discharged. I have worked on an average 17 hours a-day; my wife and my wife's sister have been one on each side of me, holding mo up and shaking me, and trying to get me to eat my supper, and perhaps I have not been two hours in bed. Sometimes I have been less than an hour in bed when the boy has come to call me up again. In the winter time it is dark when we start in the morning, and we have the same work to do as we have when we start in the summer at daylight, and the same miles to run. I have fallen to sleep when going along the road. We have sometimes to stand for 20 hours."
  Well, Sir, I think this gives us a graphic picture of what may be understood by overwork, and I think it is not a difficult matter to understand now how danger
  724
  may be incurred to the public generally when it is possible to call on a man to do that amount of work. The next case is, perhaps, even a more painful one; it is the case of Frederick Harcombe. Frederick Harcombe said—
  "I am goods guard on the Taff Vale Hail way. I have to take on traffic at different sidings, and leave it at various places according to invoices. Our hours vary to a great extent; sometimes we have to work 20 hours at a stretch. I shall take the work of last week, which would be a favourable week as regards finishing work early. On Monday, the 23rd August, I was on duty at 3.25 in the morning and left off at 8.10 in the evening; Tuesday, 6.30 a.m. to 3.50 p.m.; Wednesday, 4.40 a.m. to 1.30 the following morning; Thursday, 12.30 p.m. to 2.15 a.m.; Friday, no work; Saturday 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. The last day's work was a bit easier than general. It has been sometimes 11 or 12 o'clock when I have arrived at the docks. I have a deal of active work at the stations and sidings; the shunting, coupling, and uncoupling at stations I do all myself, as the brakesman as a regular duty has to go back 800 yards to stop a following train. The week I have given is a fair sample of ordinary work; another might be a little heavier. In working these long hours, 16,18, or 20 hours, one has a difficulty in keeping awake, nor should I be able if I had not such responsible duties to perform. We have formed deputations on different occasions to our superiors to tell them our duties could be so arranged that our hours of work would be more regular day by day; I told Mr. Fisher that I had been at work excessively long hours, and that I required a rest. Our general proposition is that we ought not to work more than 10 or 12 hours a-day. On that single trip to Merthyr on Thursday I made 18 hours and some odd minutes. If it could be so arranged that we should only go a single trip a-day these long hours would be avoided. It is not fair to make us work 18 hours one day and 6 or 8 hours the next, nor getting rest for one day to work 20 hours the next. I could refer to cases when the work was much heavier than I have stated, I have worked from the time I went on duty till the time I went off, without a break, 23 hours and 40 minutes. The Company should have more men, and not overwork the men they have. I have seen many young men come and stop a few days and then go away as if they had enough of it. I do not think you can mention a line in the United Kingdom where there are more accidents to the men employed than on ours, especially in shunting, there being such a lot of work. There is a rule which prohibits us from getting on a train while it is in motion in shunting, but I have been told by our traffic superintendent that the rules are only a matter of form. There is a rule that if a servant meets with an accident through disobedience of the Company's rules he shall not be entitled to receive any support from the accident fund, but I never knew any objection raised where the accident happened through fly-shunting."
  The particular reason why I call attention to this case is that Frederick Har-

  725
  combe, who gave this evidence before the Royal Commission, was discharged by the Company in whose service he was; and, I believe, although he tried some other five Railway Companies, he found it impossible to obtain employment in his profession.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I rise to Order. Will the hon. Gentleman give his authority for making that last statement?
  MR. RAIKES: I can only say that it was so stated by one of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with my authority when I have an opportunity of referring to it. This may, perhaps, account for the fact that there were not a greater number of witnesses of this class examined before this particular Commission. But I do not wish even the hon. Member for Hythe to understand that I am condemning the Railway Companies for not fixing regular hours, as this witness thinks they should. Every man must be called on at times to work extra hours. But, at the same time, the public have a fair right to ask the Railway Companies to take special care not to work men, as far as they can help it, beyond the power of human endurance, and render them liable to occasional accidents, and cause death to the public or injury to themselves thereby. Of course, we know that a railway servant's life is one of very great danger, and must remain one of very great danger in spite of anything which we can do, from circumstances over which the Companies can have no control. Take the case of John Chiddy, which was brought before the House some years ago. John Chiddy was a platelayer on the Bristol and Exeter line, and while at his work he saw a piece of rock had fallen across the line and a train approaching. The train would inevitably have been upset, but he gallantly rushed to the spot, and succeeded in removing the obstruction and in saving the train, although in doing so he sacrificed his own life. No one can say that the occurrence was the fault of the Company, and I have no doubt that there are many cases in which railway servants have been prepared to make great exertions in the interests of their employers without any hope of compensation or reward. There is another case which I may mention, the case of a man well
  726
  known in the city in which I have lived for a great part of my life. When I was a boy there was a serious accident at the Dee Bridge in Chester. One half of the bridge came down with the train in 1846 or 1847. The driver of the train escaped with one van. He flew along the line to the station about a mile off, having given information there, he reversed the engine and crossed the river on the other half of the broken bridge in order to give the alarm on the other side. Deeds of this nature are as heroic as anything that can occur in history. But no one will say that if this man had lost his life the Railway Company would have been in any sense responsible. We hear much of recklessness and carelessness on the part of railway servants by which they frequently lose their lives. But in many instances the disposition thus characterized is very nearly akin to the very noblest qualities which dignify human nature. I have now to ask the House to bear in mind the Reports of two previous important authorities who have considered this question. There was a Royal Commission appointed in 1865 to consider the question of Railway Accidents, and a Committee of this House sat in 1870 to consider the same question. Both inquiries contributed in an important degree to the information of the public, but both differed from the Royal Commission of 1877 in affirming the very important principle of a maximum of liability, which, in their opinion, ought to be incurred by the Railway Companies. It always appeared to me—I do not want to discuss the question at length—that Railway Companies are exceedingly hardly dealt with in the matter of unlimited damages under Lord Campbell's Act. I certainly cannot see the justice of the principle as it now operates. Take the case of two men called to the Bar. They might both be men of the highest character and the highest talent. Both are travelling in the same train. They might both be Members of this House going down into the country by the Great Western Railway to address their constituents at a General Election. One of these men might have devoted his great abilities to the service of mankind in particular as an advocate, the other might have devoted his abilities to the service of mankind in general as a pamphleteer or publicist. These two

  727
  men travel in the same train and sit side by side in the same carriage. Both in the same calamity might be killed, and the Railway Company might have to pay to the representatives of the one who was earning a professional income of £10,000 a-year a sum of £100,000, while the representatives of the other man, although he was of equal ability, would not get a shilling. Again, in case one of these men happened to be a bachelor, the Railway Company might kill him without being called upon to pay anything in the shape of damages; whereas if the other man happened to be a married man, his family would recover whatever a jury might be pleased to assess. I mention this to show the great inequality and injustice of the law in imposing almost unlimited liability upon the Railway Companies so far as passengei'3 are concerned. Well Sir, the Royal Commission of 1865, and the Committee of 1870, recommended that there should be a maximum of liability for injury done or life lost in the case of passengers, and I find that the hon. Member for Hastings, in the Bill which he introduced last year, adopted that principle with regard to railway servants, fixing the limit at the sum of £200. There is another basis on which we are entitled to go, and that is the case of the workmen's trains. The law has sanctioned the principle of fixing in regard to workmen's trains a maximum of liability, and I think it is fixed in most cases at £100. The hon. Member for Hythe will correct me if I am stating the matter in any way inaccurately; but I think that the workmen's trains are run at a maximum liability of £100 in case of an accident. [Sir EDWARD WATKIN: On the Metropolitan.] So that the principle of a maximum liability has been affirmed by Parliament. There are three ways suggested for dealing with the question. There is the simplest and easiest, which is to leave it alone. The second is to adopt the principle laid down by the Royal Commission, and not merely to adopt the principle, but to put it in practice by the Bills of Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings; but the danger of that is the danger inseparable from excessive litigation and the injury necessarily caused to the recognized principle of common employment in other industries, which must be produced
  728
  if one particular class of public servants is entitled to go into a Court of Law to obtain redress when other classes of servants are not equally entitled. I quite see the difficulty in both the first and the second of these courses. But then there is a third mode, and that is the mode which the hon. Member for Hythe calls attention in the second and perhaps the more valuable part of his Amendment—and that is the mode of insuring. Now, there are a great many Railway Companies who, although hon. Members may not know it, are very much concerned in introducing into their Acts most excellent clauses for the establishment of a superannuation and accident fund. One of these clauses, which I have in my hand, says that the directors of the Company may, if they think fit, establish and maintain an accident and life insurance fund, payable by temporary or periodical allowance in a gross sum to such of the Company's servants and workmen as may be temporarily or permanently disabled by accident. I think we have here the germ of much useful legislation; but it does not in my opinion go far enough, and it is permissive. It does not say that the Company shall, but that the Company may establish this insurance fund for accidents resulting in injury or death. In establishing these funds, if they are to be in any sense successful they must be secured by the cordial co-operation of the men, and a great number of the men dislike the clause, because they are already insured in other ways. They do not desire to avail themselves of the benefit of such a clause, because it would interfere with the arrangements they have made for their own security and would involve them in a double not like these clauses, and the Companies payment. That being so, the men do cannot enforce them. They are valuable, however, as indicating a wish to go forward in a right direction. What I desire to put to the House on this occasion is this—it appears to me that the principle on which the Royal Commissioners would act and upon which the hon. Member for Hastings has proposed to act is a sound one. In the case of Companies so peculiarly constituted and possessing such peculiar privileges as Railway Companies, special legislation is not only permissible, but even desirable. I think that in view

  729
  of the public safety, it is incumbent on Parliament to take such steps for the protection of railway servants as may give greater security to the travelling public. I certainly do think that, seeing the exceptional nature of the dangers they incur and the services they perform, railway servants possess a claim for the consideration of the Government and of this House such as cannot in an equal degree be advanced on behalf of any other class. That being so, I would ask this House, bearing in mind the fact that this system of insurance has already in many cases been adopted, bearing in mind the high authority which has sanctioned the principle of the maximum of liability, bearing in mind that that maximum liability is already the established rule in the case of passengers by workmen's trains where the particular sum to be paid is assessed not by a jury, but by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, bearing in mind all these facts, it seems to me that a case is fairly made out for establishing a system by which railway servants, in cases where they are not shown to have contributed to loss of life or injury to limb by their own act—or their representatives, in fatal cases—should be entitled to receive from the Company a certain sum to be fixed at a maximum by Parliament, and to be assessed in cases of injury by a competent arbitrator in such a way as is provided in the case of workmen's trains, and that in cases of injury they should he able to obtain this compensation from the Company where it has been established that they have not themselves conduced to their own injury. But that is not all. From the Returns presented by the Board of Trade, and submitted to the Royal Commissioners, I find that the number of railway servants killed in the six years preceding 1878 were, in 1872, 644 killed, and 1,398 injured; 1873, 773 killed, and 1,171 injured; 1875, 765 killed, and an appalling total of 3,618 injured; 1876, 673 killed, and 2,600 injured; and 1877, 642 killed, and 2,163 injured. I confess that that Return shows that during the last two years there was a considerable decrease both in death and injury, owing probably to the laudable efforts made by the Railway Companies to prevent accident, and the excellent result of the appointment of the Royal Commissioners. Well, Sir, if we take
  730
  the case of the year 1875, which is the only year I have here where the amounts are broken up, I find that out of 765 persons who were killed, the Railway Companies returned themselves as responsible for only 39, the rest being attributed to causes within the control of the sufferers; and 3,618 injured, of whom they returned only 514 as having been injured from causes beyond the control of the persons injured. Although I venture to call in question the perfect accuracy of these figures, disclaiming at the same time any disposition to impute a desire on the part of the Railway Companies to give inaccurate Returns, I may at all events say that the figures of the Companies are good against themselves; and if they say that out of this enormous number of killed and injured there were only 39 for whom they could be held at all responsible where death resulted, and only 514 out of 3,618 cases of injury, then I think we may fairly arrive at what would be the net result, supposing such a system of enforced insurance existed as that which I venture to propose. Supposing you fix the maximum liability for the killing of a railway servant at £200, and suppose you take the number of cases in the course of a year at even a higher figure than that which is set forth in this Return—suppose you say 50 instead of 39, it would cost the Companies £10,000 a-year. Taking 500 as the average number of railway servants injured by causes beyond their own control and striking a rough balance, you may say they would recover half the amount of the maximum or £100 a-piece, which is, I take it, a good deal above what the actual amount would be—suppose that a liability of £100 was incurred in the case of each of the 500 servants, you would have an annual responsibility of £50,000 under that head. If you add that £50,000 to the £10,000 for which the Companies would be responsible on account of deaths, you will arrive at a total annual charge of £60,000, which would represent the direct liability of the Railway Companies in such cases. But I do not wish to stop here. I would stop here as far as the liability of the Railway Companies is concerned; but I do not desire to stop here as a means of encouraging thereby saving and care in the railway servants themselves, because I think if you made a system of this sort the centre of a

  731
  group of clauses to be introduced into every Railway Bill, and if you said—"Where you kill or injure a man you shall pay a sum so fixed and ascertained," and if you surrounded the servants themselves with a legal machinery which would enable men to insure themselves against these railway accidents, by which they could provide against such a calamity as that which befel the poor man Chiddy, you would encourage the men in the greatest possible degree to take care of themselves. If you could establish such a system, by which, with-out an expensive source of proceeding, and without having recourse to hungry attorneys, you would provide a short and expeditious remedy in all cases of death and injury; if you use that as the centre of a system by which you encourage habits of thrift, economy, and providence, I think you would go a long way towards solving one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal. Such is the nature of my proposal. I venture to offer these suggestions in all humility to the House. There are Gentlemen here whose knowledge of railway matters must always greatly exceed my own, and there are Gentlemen here who have given this subject great attention, not only from the directors' point of view, but from that of public duty. They may differ from me in opinion, but I hope they will be satisfied that I have not brought forward this question in any spirit of hostility to any commercial interest or undertaking. I have brought it forward, because I believe that a great public duty should be discharged by this House before the House ceases to sit; and I do sincerely trust that whether or not the House will adopt the proposal I venture to submit to it on this occasion, it will, at least, form the basis of an adequate consideration of what I believe to be one of our greatest social wants, and which I am certain must in every part of the House demand our warmest sympathy. I beg, Sir, now to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the exceptional character of the services performed and dangers incurred by Railway Servants in the discharge of their duty calls for the immediate and special attention of Her Majesty's Government; and that this House is of opinion that a change in the Law is required, by which, notwithstanding the legal doctrine of common employment, adequate com-
  732
  pensation shall be secured to Railway Servants in all cases of injury to which they have not personally contributed."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN,in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That while it might, on the eve of a General Election, serve party purposes in some boroughs to single out Railway industry for exceptional legislation, such a course would be contrary to precedent and be unsupported by the facts relating to accidents attending mechanical and other industrial employments, and that the question of accidents arising in the conduct of all the industries of the Country, whether from personal carelessness, defective control, or other causes, and the consequent premature death of and injury to probably 100,000 persons annually, demands the grave attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the adoption by Parliament of some general and adequate system of insurance, to the funds for which both the capitalist and the workman should contribute in just proportions,"
  said, he had listened with very great attention to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), and certainly did not perceive that he either proved or attempted to prove the foundation of the proposition of this Resolution—namely, the exceptional and peculiar dangers and difficulties attending the working of railways. But if the working of railways was so exceptional and so dangerous, or whether it was so or not, the hon. Gentleman said all this called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. Now, if he remembered rightly, the Railway Accidents Commission reported in February, 1877. It was strange that the hon. Member's anxiety to deal with this which he called a great question should only have awakened itself in his breast on the eve of a General Election. He (Sir Edward Watkins) was not like the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. He was simply a member of the hard-working world. He was not a lawyer. The best years of his life, from the beginning of railways till now, had been spent in railway work. He thought if anyone would go among the bodies of railway working men he had to employ, it would be seen that he had neglected nothing which could in any way promote the good of the railway working man for whose sobriety, intelligence, and zeal, he had the highest respect. And with regard to injuries and death caused by the neglect of a man's fellow-servant in a common employment, he had never looked at the Act of Parliament, but merely considered what was

  733
  just and right and had always given compensation to the injured man, or to his family. The Railway Commissioners recommended that a Company should be "liable for the negligence of those to whom it delegated its authority as a master," but they did not go further than that. They "did not propose that railway Companies should be responsible to their servants, for the negligence of those who were in fact, as well as in law, fellow servants." The Railway Accidents Commissioners also recommended that the time for bringing actions should be limited. The hon. Gentleman, however, went further, and answered his own argument by differing with their Report. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had endeavoured to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government whether they were in favour of a general system of insurance applied to all industries or not. He had failed to learn from the hon. Member for Chester whether he was in favour of such an insurance or not. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was of opinion that insurance in some cases inflicted very great difficulty, if not intolerable wrong. If he read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford right we ought never to insure our property, for if we did we should be tempted to burn the property down; we ought never to insure lives, because lives would then be taken upon the shortest possible notice; and we ought not to insure ships, for no doubt the tendency of rotten ships was to go to the bottom. The hon. Member for Chester had failed in endeavouring to show that railway shareholders should be specially singled out for the infliction of a new and exceptional liability. The hon. Member, if he knew anything of industrial works, must know there were far more dangerous employments than railway employment. Many also where the human system was attacked by noxious elements. But, having rather a weak case, he tried to buttress it up by saying that railways were enormous monopolies. What that proposition had to do with the question he (Sir Edward Watkin) could not comprehend. He knew very well that there were only two or three towns where there were not two or more competing railways. There was no railway which was not competed with by roads, canals, and tramways. These railways, said the hon.
  734
  Member, were a special, the only special creation of Parliament. He began to think he was dreaming when the hon. Member said that. What were the canals, the great enterprizes of the last century, but the creation of Parliament? What were the great roads of the country, the tramways or the ordinary roads, but the creation of Parliament? In fact, every enterprize which demanded the compulsory expropriation of private rights and private property was of necessity the creation of Parliament. Coming back to the question of public safety, he found that in the course of the year 277 persons were killed by accident in the streets of London, being 10 times as many as the whole number of railway passengers who were killed on all the railways in the Kingdom by causes beyond their own control. What the hon. Member desired to do was to inflict a tax of £60,000 per annum upon railway proprietors for the support of the families of those railway employés who were killed through the negligence of their fellow-servants. He maintained that this matter of the deaths by accident of railway employés was merely the fringe of the real question, which should include all casualties and fatalities necessarily arising out of our vast industries. While the proposal of the hon. Member would not affect the cases of one in 100 who were killed in the course of their work in carrying on those industries, his own proposal would deal with them all. The railway proprietors of the Three Kingdoms employed directly and indirectly about 400,000 persons. With reference to the two cases quoted by the hon. Member which occurred on railways in South Wales, he should like to ask the hon. Member whether those were fair samples of the evidence given before the Commission? The memorials alluded to by the hon. Member, also, as he must have known, were presented by a small section of the railway employés only. It must be remembered that it was to the interest of the railway employer to treat his servants well. A railway could not stop. It must go on in all weather and in all circumstances. In other enterprizes a strike could endure; on our railways it could not be thought of; and he considered that our railway servants were not only among the best paid, but amongst the most kindly considered of

  735
  the working classes. Turning to the larger subject, if the hon. Member would examine the Report of the Registrar General of Births and Deaths, he would find that of the 18,500 persons who met with violent deaths every year, only some 1,283 were killed in connection with railways in any way, whether as passengers, or as being employed in the workshops, or in any and every other way. It was no less strange than true that correcting the figures by population, this ghastly total presented the same volume year after year. Accident leading to '' violent death" seemed to be an all but constant quantity, an element, therefore, which must be taken into account always in calculating the hopes and chances of life. And it was probable that for one person who died by accident, 20 were, more or less injured. Thus the appalling figure of 400,000 would represent the annual accident liability of this great industrial country. Against these figures he would place the 6,445 persons who died from what the Registrar called "mechanical injuries" other than those received in connection with railways and mines; also the 2,789 who died from "chemical injuries; also the 5,708 who died from "asphyxia; and the 1,974 who died from "falls." They had heard a good deal with regard to the danger of railway travelling; but it was a remarkable circumstance that the deaths resulting from horse conveyance for the year amounted to 1,522, while 1,043 persons were killed by what the Registrar classed as "fractures," apart from death by fracture on railways and mines. Although 61 persons were killed by agricultural machinery, the hon. Member had not brought forward any proposal for the protection of such persons. The figures showed that railway travelling was the safest mode of conveyance, and that railway servants enjoyed a greater immunity from accidents than many other employés. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that he had established a fair case against the Motion of the hon. Member. The groundwork of his whole proposition had been disproved. It appeared to him that the great value of insurance was—first, that it made the risk run a definite risk; secondly, that it was perfectly fair; and, thirdly, that by its being universal, it would give satisfaction to all. A high authority—Lord Shand, an
  736
  eminent Scotch Judge—had expressed an opinion on this subject which conclusively proved that the Employers' Liability Bill was nothing more nor less than an attempt, whether for political or humanitarian purposes, to deal with a very small part of a very great question. Lord Shand said that the great majority of accidents that occurred were what were popularly called unavoidable accidents, or accidents which were naturally incident to the employment, and which were often caused by the negligence of the unhappy sufferer, who was, however, not the less entitled to sympathy on that account. None of the legislative measures proposed, he said, would in the least degree meet this, which he believed to be the largest class of accidents. There appeared to be one remedy which, in Lord Shand's opinion, was the only one which could be resorted to, and that was a system of insurance to be contributed to by both employers and workmen to guard against the contingencies of perilous employments. These were words of wisdom, which he would recommend to the consideration of the House. But the House would not have forgotten the decisive letters which were given to the public through the Press, on the whole subject, by one of our greatest lawyers, the Lord Justice Bram-well. The hon. Member for Chester scarcely did justice to the great class of employers in this country. The Railway Companies as a rule—he admitted that there were exceptions—the great colliery owners as a rule, the great manufacturers of metals as a rule adopted a system of insurance, to which they and their employés contributed, to provide for times of sickness and for funerals and accidents; and one of the great ironworks, the "Staveley," had received and distributed, since 1867, a total sum for insurance amounting to no less than £59,918. It was unjust to the great employers of labour to say that they neglected the just rights, or the wants, and sufferings of their people, and if one single interest, and that a defenceless body, was selected on the eve of a General Election for attack, cause should be shown why it should be so treated. Did the Government sympathize with that attack? He wished the hon. Member for Chester would have treated them to the political economy of the question. He would, however, venture to remind

  737
  the House of the difference between a definite and an indefinite risk. The one was insurable, and therefore entered into the cost and the price of the thing done or produced. Thus the consumer paid it. But the other was uninsurable, and therefore was a tax upon capital. True, the hon. Member for Chester proposed to limit the compensation in case of death to £200. He (Sir Edward Watkin) did not know whether that would either satisfy the hon. Member for Stafford, or the railway servants at Chester. Why should not Her Majesty's Government aid those who had tried their hand at aiding themselves, who by agreement with their employers had established those insurance funds for a day of distress? If they frankly accepted the principle of insurance as laid down in his Amendment, then he admitted they would have a very good thing to go to the country with. In no other way, in his opinion, could they deal adequately with the question. The hon. Member had hinted rather than said something about great monopolies and great corporations. He would, however, be surprised to hear that there was a railway employé for every shareholder, and that the ordinary dividend of the ordinary stockholder was little more than the average sum paid to principal mechanics and signalmen on railways. He believed that a system of insurance, such as he had spoken of, would willingly be joined in by railway employés, and he commended the system to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There was no greater question of the day to be solved. If they took it in hand they would, he believed, find the employers of labour ready to help them in establishing a just and wise system, which would redound to their credit and be a great national benefit. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. KNOWLESseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while it might, on the eve of a General Election, serve party purposes in such boroughs to single out Railway industry for exceptional legislation, such a course would be contrary to precedent and he unsupported by the facts relating to accidents attending mechanical and other industrial employments, and that the question of accidents arising in the conduct of
  738
  all the industries of the Country, whether from personal carelessness, defective control, or other causes, and the constant premature death of and injury to probably 100,000 persons annually, demands the grave attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the adoption by Parliament of some general and adequate system of insurance, to the funds for which both the capitalist and the workman should contribute in just proportions,"—(Sir Edward Watkin,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HALL,in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), said, he did so, not because he believed the Railway Companies to be defenceless bodies, but because he believed this to be a very important branch of a very difficult subject, and one which ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. Whether the interesting plan sketched out by his hon. Friend was likely to commend itself to the House he could not say; but he thought it was one which offered a chance of showing the wisest way to go, and one which would be most acceptable to railway employés themselves. He had never heard that railway servants desired more than to be relieved from the disability of being unable to claim compensation for injury received in the course of the service. The law had been so strained of late years that it was now held that a railway servant was not only responsible for his own acts, but was unable to obtain compensation for any act of a fellow-servant, whereby he sustained injury, provided the act was the result of negligence and was not wilfully committed. That was the injustice which was complained of. The Courts of Scotland had never interpreted the law so strictly against the workmen as the Courts in England; but in the year 1856 the House of Lords ruled that the same principle applied to both countries. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) asked why were the railway servants singled out—why were they not to deal with the whole question? The hon. Member for Hythe was pained that nothing was to be done for agricultural labourers and others. As to the interest which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) looked after, it was doubtful whether the mining industry would exist at all if the doctrine of common employ-

  739
  ment were abolished. Yet the abolition of the doctrine of common employment would throw upon the shareholders the whole consequences of the men's carelessness. He was far from saying that miners had no case; and he was not grudging them legislation on a just basis. But he wished to show that, in asking for too much, the miners ought not to be surprised if Parliament did not allow the claims of others, who did not ask for too much, to be prejudiced as a consequence of the action of the miners. He believed the railway servants would be perfectly content with the doctrine of Common employment, if it could be so narrowed as to exclude those whose actions they were unable to control, and the consequences of whoso actions it was out of their power to evade. He could not understand why a private employer should be liable to a servant, while the company went scot free. He could not understand on what principle of justice it was that, if a man worked for a private employer, and in carrying out his orders he met with an accident, he knew to whom he had to go for compensation; while on the other hand, if the same man worked for a Company and met with an accident he found his masters vanish, to re-appear in the humble garb of follow-workmen. This was a parody of justice, and he only wondered it had lasted so long. It was no answer to say that the Railway Companies subscribed to this fund and to that fund. No doubt, the railway directors were very generous, and, no doubt, there was wisdom in their generosity. But the law knew nothing of generosity. The law ought to see that when railway officials asked for only that which was just, they should receive it without delay.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, it must be understood his sympathies were with the railway servants. He owed his position, to a great extent, to railway men, and he always took their part when he could. But, in legislating on this question, there would be danger of doing the railway servants injury. It was well known that some Railway Companies were very liberal; but if Companies had to pay compensation when they were found to be in fault, there would be so much litigation and expense that the
  740
  Companies would not, in other cases, give so much compensation voluntarily as they did at present. A large number of men were injured and killed without it being either their own fault or that of the Company. Shunters slipped and were run over; platelayers stepped aside to avoid one train and were killed by another. If Companies were exposed to litigation in other cases, they would show less sympathy in these. It was hardly fair to quote the Taff Vale Company's line, as the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) had done. It was one of the best worked lines in the country; it had a smaller percentage of accidents than other lines in proportion to the amount of traffic, and. in 45 years it had never killed a passenger, until the unfortunate accident at Ponty-prid a few months ago. If men worked long hours, it was but occasionally and in exceptional circumstances. A storm kept ships out of port; a calm brought in a number of steamers which required coaling with expedition. Men who had been idle were called on to make a prolonged effort, and they were glad enough to do it to make up for lost time; but, as a rule, the men did not work more than 10 or 12 hours at a stretch. He should like something to be done, but it must be in a direction different from that proposed. As the Report of the Commissioners was three years old, it was rather extraordinary that the hon. Member for Chester had not found an earlier opportunity of calling attention to it. There were 19 accidents for which a Company was not to blame, for one in which it was; and it would be unfortunate if the securing of compensation in one case risked the loss or diminution of it in the 19.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading-Neglected Lunatics (Ireland) * (31).
Second Reading—Artizans Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act (1879) Amendment* (21); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Banbridge &c.) * (25).
Committee—Report—Settled Land (14–32); Conveyancing and Law of Property * (15–33); Indian Salaries and Allowances* [22].

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE EASTER MONDAY VOLUNTEER REVIEW.
VISCOUNT BURY: I regret to state that the Dissolution of Parliament, as announced yesterday, affects the question of the Easter Monday Review. The Volunteer Regulations lay down that Volunteer corps are not to be assembled for any purpose whatever between the issue of the Writ and the termination of the election. It is possible that proceedings in connection with elections may be going on in some boroughs on Easter Monday; and if the polling is not fixed for that day in Brighton, it is quite possible it may be fixed in other boroughs where Volunteer corps may assemble. If troops of the Regular Forces should take part in the Review,

669
as we had anticipated, the Volunteers would be liable to the Army Discipline Act (section 169–8) and thus come under the Act, 10 Vict. c. 21, which makes it illegal for them to assemble within two miles of any "city or place" on days of nomination, election, or polling. There is the possible alternative of allowing the Volunteers to assemble without any Regular officers or troops. But this would seem to be very unadvisable; and then arises the further question, whether the Review, if so held, would not run the risk of failure, by Volunteers who are electors absenting themselves from the Review for the purpose of attending the elections in their own boroughs. On the whole, in view of the legal and other difficulties, it would seem to be advisable to postpone the Review. If, however, a desire be expressed to hold a Review at Whitsuntide, the authorities will, no doubt, be ready to grant the same facilities as those which they were prepared to give at Easter.

SETTLED LAND BILL—(No. 14.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SETTLED LAND BILL—(No. 14.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said, he only proposed that it should be committed pro formâ, in order that it might be placed before the House and the country in as complete a state as possible.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he regretted that a slight indisposition prevented his being present in the House on the second reading of this Bill and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill. He had wished to make some remarks on what they contained and what they omitted. It would not be becoming in him to inflict a second reading speech upon the House on this formal stage of the Bill; but there were some questions which he should like to ask. The first arose from the announcement made the previous night. He should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Govern-
  670
  ment intended to pass these Bills through the House of Lords before the Dissolution? He might ask with advantage for the public, who took great interest in this matter. He should be glad to know what answer there could be to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Selborne) that existing and future settlements should be treated in the same way? The difference was considerable; but even if it were not, whichever was the best way ought surely to be applied to both. He found, also, that there was a difference of opinion even among the lawyers as to the powers given by the Bill to limited owners under future settlements. Could he, if stimulated only by the desire to increase his life income by the sale of land, investing the produce in certain securities giving a rather higher rate of interest, without the same deductions from gross income, do so? Or would the remainder-man be able under the Bill to bring him into Court to force him to apply the purchase-money to some of the other purposes mentioned in the Bill? There was one other point on which he should like an explanation. Why, if the life-tenant had power to sell the estate, should he be debarred from selling the mansion? He knew there was a sentiment on this point, and that the provision was not without precedent. But if a man sold his estate, or the greater part of it, without the house, it would in most cases diminish the value of the estate; while it left a positive white elephant on the hands of one who, on the hypothesis, had not money to spare. He was aware that power was given to the trustees and to the Courts; but there seemed to be no directions as to what principle was to be adopted by them when such an application was made.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it had been thought advisable to make the mansion house an exception. There would not be power to the limited owner to grant a long lease of the mansion house or to sell it without the leave of the Court: but as there were cases in which it might be desirable to even sell the mansion house, the Court would have a discretionary power in the matter. It would be for the Court to say whether, in its opinion, there were good reasons for either making a long lease of or selling the mansion house.

  671
  As regarded the investment of money derived from the sale of land, the proposal was that it should be employed for the various purposes enumerated in the Bill, or invested in any of those securities in which the Court of Chancery was authorized to invest the money under its control. The remainder-man would have no power to re-invest it in land during the lifetime of the tenant for life. The difference made in the Bill between existing settlements and future settlements was not very great. The tenant for life in existing settlements would have to apply to the Court for leave to sell, while the tenant for life in future settlements could sell by leave of the trustees. One strong reason for this difference was that in some existing settlements there might be no trustees to whom the tenant for life could apply for leave to sell; but in future settlements there would be such trustees. If they made no objection, the tenant for life would have the power to do what he proposed; but if they did, the Court of Chancery would decide whether the power should be exercised or not. He asked their Lordships to go into Committee on this and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, in order that Amendments might be inserted in them which would make them more complete; but he did not do so with the idea that the Bill could become law in the present Parliament.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 19 th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 32.)

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—THE PRISONS ACT, 1868—EXECUTIONS IN CHEETHAM AND KIRKDALE GAOLS.

  MOTION FOR, AN ADDRESS.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in rising to call the attention of the House to the presentment of the jury empanelled to sit on the body of William Cassidy, executed in Cheetham Prison, with respect to the admission of reporters; and to move—
  "That it is the opinion of this House that it is advisable that other than official persons should he present at intramural executions."
  672
  said, that this was a matter that had created considerable public interest; and the conversation which took place the other night, in the House of Commons, was not sufficiently satisfactory to enable him to dispense with the necessity for bringing the matter forward. There was, no doubt, a change in public opinion upon this subject; for during the long period that he took an interest in this question he was not able to induce any Government to bring about the change in the law that had now taken place. It was also, by a strange accident, that he was now called upon to ask a very different question. Among the Ministers that he had communicated with upon the subject was one in whose abilities he had the greatest confidence (Sir James Graham); but he was unable to convince him that it would be proper to execute criminals away from the public gaze within the walls of a prison, or that this could be done without offending the sense of public justice. The important change, however, was made by an Act of Parliament in 1868. That Act provided for the execution of criminals within the prison walls; but no provision was made for the admission of reporters, the discretion of admitting anyone within the gaol being invested in the Sheriffs. They all knew, from the reports in old chronicles, that scandalous scenes were enacted in the prisons after this period, and eventually an order was made by the Home Office to exclude reporters. Even then, however, the reporters mingled with the crowd outside and obtained from the officials an account of the execution, and were able to write an account. The Act of 1868 provided that certain persons should be admitted—such as the chaplain, the gaoler, the surgeon, and such relatives of the criminal as the Sheriffs thought fit; but as time went on the powers of the Sheriff got smaller and smaller, until such matters were left, for the major part, in the discretion of the Visiting Justices. The Act that had transferred the jurisdiction over the prison from the Visiting Justices to the Home Office had virtually and by implication altered the operation of the law. The authority of the High Sheriff was supposed to remain paramount when it was not interrupted by direction from the Home Office, and the Visiting Justices could no longer admit such persons

  673
  as they thought fit. The practice of the admission of reporters had been variously exercised. In the prisons of his own county—Yorkshire—all reporters were excluded on one occasion; on another more than a dozen were admitted; generally three or four were present; and at the execution of Peace, whose case had created great sensation, there were about 40 applications, but only four reporters were allowed to be present. No special attention appeared to have been called to those circumstances. But in the case of Cassidy, who was executed in the early part of this year, the High Sheriff of Lancashire, on his own special authority, refused to allow any reporter to be in attendance. The importance attached to that refusal showed that a public opinion had been formed upon the question; and he believed that such an action as that pursued was not only peculiar, but that it was not in accordance with public opinion. The Coroner, in the full exercise of his right, declined to hold the inquest on the body within the prison, and empanelled a Jury outside. The Jury made a presentment to the Home Office, expressing a wish that on future occasions reporters of the Press should be allowed to be present at executions. In the same county—Lancashire,—namely, at Kirkdale Gaol, two prisoners had been executed, and on that occasion the High Sheriff absolutely refused to allow any reporters to be present. Some communication appeared to have taken place between the Home Office and the High Sheriff, and subsequently the latter expressed his willingness to admit the representative of one of the papers, whose editor had written to him on the subject, but on three conditions, which were, in effect—to report the fact that the execution was carried out humanely or otherwise; to publish no detailed account of the appearance of the prisoners, either before or after the execution; and to supply no other paper with information in contravention of those conditions. The editor of the paper in question declined to accede to the conditions laid down, and the other Liverpool journals took a similar step. At the inquest the Jury expressed a strong opinion that the representatives of the Press should be present, not only at the inquest, but also at the execution. Looking at this question from a larger point of view, he might fairly call upon the House
  674
  to affirm the proposition he submitted to their consideration—that it was advisable that other than official persons should be present at intramural executions. If ever any notion got abroad that this terrible penalty of the law was not carried out with due solemnity, and with the greatest possible humanity, such an impression would have an injurious effect upon the public mind. If the Government took the same view, he would be content to leave the whole matter to the discretion of the Home Office, whether they should adopt the American plan of empanelling a Jury of execution—that was, a Jury of independent persons who could be present at the execution; or whether a certain portion of the prison yard might be used for the admission of the general public; or whether a selection should be made from the representatives of the Press where the applications where numerous? Whatever course the Home Office might adopt, he trusted they would, at any rate, satisfy the just demands for publicity, combined with the requirements of public feeling.
  Moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that it is advisable that other than official persons should he present at intramural executions."—(The Lord Houghton.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHregretted that a proposal, abrogating to a great extent a just and proper law against public executions, should emanate from a noble Lord who was well known to be of a poetical and refined mind. He was sorry that the noble Lord should make himself the mouthpiece of the public Press on a question of this kind. It had been established, beyond doubt, that executions conducted in public had a brutalizing effect; that certain classes delighted in the horrors attending such spectacles; and that the facts were exaggerated by the worst part of the public Press. Surely the functions of the Jury were sufficient to satisfy public opinion; and then, in addition, there was the character of the persons who were entrusted with the execution as a security that the execution was carried out in a decent and proper manner. He thought that it would be well that the Legislature should provide that reporters should be altogether excluded from executions.
  EARL FORTESCUEthought that the High Sheriff of Lancashire had exercised a sound discretion in excluding reporters

  675
  from these scenes. He regretted, however, that at one of the executions referred to the jurors had not been admitted as spectators. He did not see why a complaint should be made as to the non-admission of reporters, if they would not consent to confine their accounts to the unsensational circumstances connected with the execution. If this were not done, the object for which public executions had been abolished would be defeated, and they would again have those revolting and disgusting details of public executions, which a leading article in The Times had so graphically discouraged. The clamour against capital punishment had very much died away since those details had ceased to be brought under the public eye; and he did not wonder, therefore, that the opponents of capital punishment joined in the cry against the exclusion of reporters from the places of execution.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he had followed the remarks of the noble Lord who made the Motion with some surprise, because they naturally led to a repeal of the Act of 1868. There was no adequate ground of complaint that publicity was not given, and there was no desire not to give due publicity to executions under the law. He thought that the action of the High Sheriff must be viewed with satisfaction by most persons. It might be said that the newspaper Press consisted of gentlemen to whom the public were very much indebted; but no body of reporters was wiser than the most foolish one of the whole number; and if they admitted the right divine of the whole body of reporters to be present at executions without cheek or without control, they would leave it in the hands of the most foolish and the most sensational of the reporters to send forth to the people any statement that he might think proper, regardless of the consequences to the morals of the population. It was clear that whatever was left to the discretion of a. person was left to his indiscretion; and he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the High Sheriff than in those of any other persons who were irresponsible. The High Sheriff of Lancashire did not impose any absolute condition of absence on the reporters; but the conditions which he laid down as to their admission were wise and judicious. Formerly, the Visiting Justices had power to admit persons to wit-
  676
  ness executions; but by the Prisons Act that power was transferred to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he, having no local knowledge, and having no means really in his power of exercising any discrimination, which would be itself an invidious task, left it entirely to the High Sheriff, who was responsible for the due administration of the law. The noble Lord had said that the High Sheriff was not paramount, and was not responsible for the due administration of the law. That was not a fair representation of the case. The High Sheriff was paramount, and was responsible for the due administration of the law; and he very much doubted if the Secretary of State for the Home Department imposed upon that functionary conditions which were not warranted by law, whether the High Sheriff would not regard them as advice merely, which he might or might not follow. The question was really a very simple one. Were they to allow facilities for discussing the degrading details of the last moments of notorious malefactors? If they were disposed to say that such things should be allowed, they would strike a great blow at the Act of 1868. The noble Lord said that publicity was the essence of British justice. No doubt that was so, and Parliament had laid down that due publicity should be given to executions; but that publicity was to be in the presence of those whose duty it was to see that justice was fully carried out, and not to allow disgusting and degrading details to be given by every wretched penny-a-liner to be sent to the newspapers. He contended that the Press could not be indiscriminately admitted. The High Sheriff made an offer to the various Liverpool newspapers to be admitted under the conditions which had been described, and which they declined; and unless their Lordships were prepared to say that there should be indiscriminate and uncontrolled admission, they must place some restriction on the admission. The Act of Parliament said that certain officials should be present, and when the execution was over there had to be an inquiry before the Coroner and a Jury. The noble Lord suggested that there should be one of three courses pursued. The first was, that there should be a special Jury empanelled in the prison. He (Earl Beauchamp) did not say that that

  677
  could not be done; but he thought that in the end they would come to be regarded as mere officials, and their presence would really give no additional satisfaction to the public. The next course he suggested was, that a portion of the open yard should be devoted to the public; but that would reproduce all the worst features of the scene that used to take place before Newgate; and so far from its securing the proper fulfilment of the law, it would be the means of bringing its highest punishment into contempt. The third remedy suggested by the noble Lord was that a certain number of selected reporters should be sent from the newspapers who should be present; but he thought he had sufficiently answered that by what he had said with reference to the discretion exercised by sensational reporters. Believing, as he did, that the Act of 1868 provided all necessary safeguards to secure that the law was fully vindicated and the identity of the criminal executed established, he must oppose the Motion.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he was not at all satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord who represented the Home Office in that House. He (Lord Aberdare) would not be for indiscriminate admissions to executions; but he thought that the Statute contemplated considerable publicity, and that it was not in accordance with English notions that executions should be witnessed by only the officials of the gaol. There were two means by which publicity might be secured—first, by the presence of the High Sheriff; secondly, by that of the Visiting Justices, or some such persons appointed for the purpose. Now, publicity was desirable to a certain extent. But the Secretary of State for the Home Department threw upon the Sheriff the whole responsibility as to the admission of persons at executions. Was that a satisfactory state of things? The answer given was that the High Sheriff was a person whom they could implicitly trust. But why? What guarantee was there that the High Sheriffs would exercise that discretion wisely? They were not appointed because of any special qualifications, but because they possessed so many thousands or hundreds a-year. One High Sheriff might take one view of the matter, and another take a different view. One great source of publicity had disappeared—namely,
  678
  that of the presence of the Visiting Justices. The Visiting Justices were far more likely to exercise a sound discretion than the High Sheriffs. He thought it desirable, therefore, that some other means should be adopted of securing that the circumstances of humanity and decency were observed than at present. He regretted the alteration which had taken place by the action of the Government in passing the Prisons Act. He thought that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would do well to consider how the matter of publicity should be duly attended to without introducing any of those details the publication of which they all deprecated. He hoped that some general regulation on the subject would be made by authority.
  Viscount CRANBROOK and Lord DENMANrising at the same time to address the House,
  EARL GRANVILLE moved that Viscount CRANBROOK be heard.
  On Question, agreed to.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that there appeared to be no difference of opinion, with the exception of that which had been expressed by the noble Lord who had introduced the subject, as to the value of the alteration which had been made in the law; and, so far as he was aware, there was no complaint on the part of the general public that the prisoner left for execution was not duly and properly executed according to law. But it was a very remarkable fact that those persons who wished for more publicity had been exactly those who were in favour of the abolition of that punishment; whereas those who were in favour of private executions were those who were against the abolition of capital punishment. A good deal had been said as to the injury done to the morals of the public, and that was one of the most important points connected with the question; and he contended that there was a great injury done to morals by the descriptions given of what was said and done by criminals in their last moments. Now, why had this question arisen? It was in consequence of a remonstrance on the part of the Coroner's Jury that reporters were excluded; but there was no desire to exclude them absolutely. Certain officials had to be present, and the High Sheriff had the power to admit persons; and he had no

  679
  doubt that power would be exercised with discretion. He thought it would be very unwise that other than official persons should be allowed, as a general rule, to be present. He submitted that there was at present sufficient publicity. The law had been in force for 12 years, and its operation had never been called in question until recently, and he hoped the Motion would be rejected.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that an hon. and learned Relative of his had 12 years ago predicted that, if the Act in question passed for a few years, complaint would be made of private assassinations in prisons. This debate showed that such a complaint would have been unfounded, and High Sheriffs whom he had seen in every part of England were well worthy of the trust reposed in them; and the High Sheriff of Lancashire, whose office was paid, and whose expenses used to be guaranted by the Under Sheriff on account of the fees received by him, had exercised a wise discretion in not allowing the danger of scenes like those which followed Peace's execution, being again incurred.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was no difference of opinion as to the necessity for preventing those demoralizing accounts of executions which used to appear in the public papers. His noble Friend (Lord Houghton) had said there was no security at present that executions were properly carried out; and he pressed upon the Government that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should consider whether an arrangement could not be made by which the officials should be guided upon all occasions. They had all great confidence in the Executive Government of the country; but they would like persons to be present who were independent of the State. He would refer to an analogous case. There had been a Commission as to the working of the Penal Servitude Acts. The Commissioners reported that the administration of the convict system was, on the whole, excellent. But they, nevertheless, suggested that in order to strengthen the authorities and give confidence to the public, some non-official persons should be appointed to visit the prisons. He understood that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had determined to act upon these suggestions, and he thought that something
  680
  might be done in the same way in this matter.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDbegged to remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) and their Lordships that the publicity desired by the noble Earl, beyond that of the presence of the officials, was already secured by that of the friends of the sufferer, and of any magistrates who might choose to attend. The question had, therefore, no analogy whatever to that of the penal servitude system quoted by the noble Earl.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in reply, said, this matter had occasioned a great deal of excitement in the large centres of population, and he feared, unless something were done, it would continue. In the Press notices about "strangulation" were to be read, and almost the whole of the London Press supported the admission of some non-official person to be present at these executions. At present the matter seemed small; but it might rise to be one of public danger in the administration of the law. Some steps ought to be taken through the Home Office; for if, public opinion were not in some degree satisfied, the results would be serious and unfortunate. Under all the circumstances, he would not divide the House upon the Motion.
  Original Motion put, and resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.