Sitting of 29 March 1881

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL(by Order)—Withdrawn—Thames River.
PUBLIC BILL—Select Committee—Report—Married Women's Property (Scotland) [No. 152].

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  THAMES RIVER BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that at last this Bill, which had been so frequently delayed, came before the House for the purpose of enabling hon. Members to express an opinion as to whether, in its present form, it should be read a second time or not. He did not, of course, wish to blame the Government for the many delays which had taken place in regard to the second reading of the Bill. In fact, his (Mr. Ritchie's) feeling in reference to the delay was a mingled feeling. For some reasons he had been glad of the delay; for other reasons he regretted it. He was glad of the delay because it had afforded him more opportunities for investigating the subject; and upon each investigation he had become armed with a further authority in justification of the course which he now asked the House to adopt. On the other hand, he regretted the delay somewhat, because it had given the Government an opportunity, which they had certainly availed themselves of to the fullest extent, of endeavouring, to use a familiar word, to square hon. Members who were likely to be opposed to the second reading of the Bill. He himself knew of cases in which this influence had been exercised in a very extraordinary degree. He knew that it was not an unfrequent thing for the Government to endeavour to meet the objections which might be raised to their Bills by private Members; but it was somewhat of a novelty for the Government to endeavour, as he was told they had done in this case, to strike an absolute bargain with hon. Members who had signified their intention of opposing the Bill—that bargain being that if they would withdraw their opposition the Government would consent to make certain changes in the Bill; but that if they did not withdraw their opposition, then the Government would not make those changes. He understood that this mode of ne-

    97
    gotiation with hon. Members had been, to a certain extent, successful; but it was a course which would hardly redound to the credit of those in charge of the Bill. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was not the Amendment which he had originally placed upon it; and he thought it necessary to say a few words of explanation on the subject, in order that he might not lay himself open to the charge of having changed his front. He never intended to ask the House to refuse a second reading to this Bill on the merits of the Bill itself; but it was pointed out to him that his first Notice—"That this Bill should be read a second time on this day six months"—might be understood by some as being directed against the merits of the Bill; and, therefore, he came to the conclusion that the Amendment which he now had upon the Paper was one which more accurately represented the position which he desired to take up. He had no intention of entering into the merits of this Bill. Indeed, he contended that its merits were an altogether secondary consideration—that the question was one of far more importance than the merits of any particular Bill. The question, in point of fact, was entirely one of principle. He might point out that this Amendment, if the House assented to it, would not necessarily be fatal to the Bill. It was an Amendment which was simply directed against the mode in which the Bill was introduced; and if it were carried, there would be nothing whatever to hinder the Government from withdrawing the Bill and introducing it again to-morrow as a Public Bill.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went;—and being returned;—Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

    THAMES RIVER BILL (by Order.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had already stated that his Amendment to this Bill was not directed against the merits of the Bill. He wished the House clearly to understand that. He did not propose to go into the merits of the Bill. In fact, he acknowledged at once that there was a necessity for legislation. The pro-
    98
    position might be or might not be of a most reasonable kind. That was not what he asked the House to consider. What he asked the House to consider was, whether this legislation was to be carried out by a private measure or by a public one; and if his Amendment were assented to, it would do nothing to hinder the Government from introducing the Bill to-morrow as a public measure. He hoped he should be able to convince the House that this was a Bill which ought to be dealt with as a public measure. He hoped he should be able to show the House that almost every one of the provisions of the Bill, taken by itself, would constitute the measure a public one; but, taken together, his case was absolutely overwhelming. Now, the first difficulty he had to contend against, in consequence of the mode in which the Bill had been introduced, was that they had not been favoured with a speech from the Member of Her Majesty's Government who was in charge of the Bill. That placed him in a somewhat difficult position, because he hardly knew on what arguments the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) relied, and what he (Mr. Ritchie) had to answer. That was one of the difficulties consequent upon the mode in which Her Majesty's Government had chosen to introduce the Bill. If the Government had introduced the measure as they ought to have done—as a Public Bill—hon. Members would have had the reasons for introducing it, and the arguments in its favour, placed before the House by the Minister responsible for the Bill. But as it was, here was a Bill, dealing with a large and important matter, which was simply moved by the hon. Member in charge of it (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) lifting his hat. He was afraid that the course which had been taken by the Government would lead to his remarks being longer than they would otherwise have been, because it was necessary that he should endeavour to meet every single point Her Majesty's Government could raise; whereas, if the hon. Member had moved the second reading in the ordinary way, it would, perhaps, have been sufficient for him to have confined himself to answering the arguments used by the hon. Member. There had, however, been distributed to the Members of the House a Paper of "Reasons" in favour of the second

    99
    reading of the Bill. Now, he did not think that that course was one which, as a rule, was a convenient one. He knew it was frequently taken in the case of a Private Bill; but he ventured to say that it never before had been taken in reference to a Bill in charge of a Minister of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman might say, and say truly, that these "reasons" had been distributed by the Thames Conservancy Board, who, he said, were the promoters of the Bill. No doubt, if the hon. Gentleman said so it would be true; but it was a curious coincidence that the names of the Parliamentary agents at the end of these "reasons," who, he presumed, were the agents for the Thames Conservancy, were also those of the agents to the Board of Trade. It might be a mere coincidence; but it led one to suppose that the Government themselves had something to do with the issue of these "reasons." He thought it necessary to ask the House, in the first place, to consider for one moment the difference in the mode of proceeding in reference to a Public and a Private Bill. A Public Bill, in the first place, was distributed to every Member of the House some days before the second reading was taken, so that hon. Members might make themselves acquainted with all the objects proposed by the measure. In the case of a Private Bill, no distribution took place to the Members of that House. In the case of a Public Bill, either upon its introduction or upon the second reading, the nature of its provisions was explained by the Minister of the Crown in charge of it, and a debate took place before assent was given to the principle contained in it. It was altogether different in regard to a Private Bill. It was read at a quarter to 4 o'clock, when there were very few Members in the House. It was read as a matter of course, and the House was committed to whatever principle there might be in it. As a rule, Private Bills did not initiate any new principle at all, but were simply for carrying out in some particular locality the principles already assented to by the House in previous measures of public legislation. He remembered perfectly well last Session that a Private Railway Bill was brought into this House, in which it was proposed to deal with the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act—a Public Act
    100
    —and the House rejected it on the third reading, because it interfered with that Public Act, and because it was held that hon. Members ought not to be asked to reverse important principles of general legislation in a Private Bill. In this case there was another inconvenience which hon. Members, who had been so long deprived of their rights in regard to private Members' days, would readily appreciate and understand. If this Bill had been introduced as a Public Bill by the Government, as it ought to have been, the Government would have been compelled to place it on the Paper for a Government night; but here the Government came down with a Bill of great importance affecting the whole trade and commerce of London, and they proposed to bring it forward on a private Members' night. They carefully abstained from placing it on the Paper on a Government night; but they brought it forward on a private Members' night; and, in so doing, they staved off the Motions of hon. Members which already stood on the Paper until some indefinite period in the evening. The Government had interfered very largely with private Members' days this Session. It might have been necessary; but this was altogether an unnecessary interference with private Members' days and with the rights of private Members. He had pointed out what the difference was between the second reading of a Private Bill and a Public Bill. He now came to the Committee stage. A Public Bill passed through a Committee of the Whole House; and all the clauses were carefully considered. A Private Bill went upstairs; and even if referred to the large Committee, which the hon. Gentleman expressed his willingness to nominate in this case, it would never come back again so that its details might be discussed. A Private Bill did not appear again in that House until it was considered. There was another inconvenience in treating a Bill containing any very great principles of legislation as a Private Bill. A Private Bill Committee did not, as was the custom in a Committee of the Whole House, postpone, in the first place, the Preamble of the Bill. The House then considered the clauses, and if alterations were made in the clauses, the Preamble was afterwards amended in accordance with these altered clauses; but the first

    101
    thing a Committee upon a Private Bill considered was the Preamble; and no alteration was allowed to be made in the clauses which was not in strict accord with the Preamble. He might mention that the Committee on the East India Railway Bill in 1879 felt it to be so inconvenient to deal with matters involving great principles in a Private Bill that a special Report was made by them pointing out the inconvenience of such a proceeding. He had now to refer to the reasons which had been distributed against his Amendment in opposition to the Bill. The first, which he would put shortly, was that this was properly a Private Bill; and why? Because, forsooth, the Thames was a locality. Private Bills dealt with localities; and as the Thames was a locality this ought to be a Private Bill. Now, he did not deny that, technically, the Bill could be introduced as a Private Bill. His Amendment did not say that, technically, it could not be introduced as a Private Bill. What the Amendment said was that it ought not to be introduced as a Private Bill; and that was the whole ground of the argument. The House knew that, on more than one occasion, Bills had been introduced into that House as Private Bills, and Resolutions passed to the effect that they ought not to be dealt with as Private Bills. Those Bills were all, technically, Private Bills; but the House had said that they ought not to have been so dealt with. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whom he regretted to see was not in his place, some years ago moved the rejection of a Private Bill, not because it could not technically be called a Private Bill, but because it contained provisions such as constituted it a Public Bill. So with the Manchester Education Bill, which was introduced as a Private Bill. It complied with the Standing Orders, and passed through all the forms which usually applied to Private Bills, thus showing that it was technically a Private Bill; but the House said—"This is a Bill involving large principles, which ought not to be dealt with by any Private Bill." The House assented to a Resolution to that effect almost identical with the Resolution he asked the House to assent to now. Therefore, he did not assert that there was anything informal in the introduction of this Bill; but while say-
    102
    ing that, he altogether denied the validity of the grounds contained in the so-called "Reasons" to which he had referred. The idea of calling the Thames through 200 miles of its course, touching, as it did, many large and important towns, and conveying the trade and commerce of London upon it—the idea of calling it a "locality" was simply ludicrous. One might as well call the Mississippi a locality. There would be just as much reason for such a designation as to call the Thames a locality. Another of the "reasons" given was that Public Bills must relate to the whole community. Of course they must; and that was exactly what he said. He contended that this Bill related to the whole community. Another statement put forward in the "reasons" against his Amendment was that Bills brought in at the suit of the promoters were necessarily Private Bills, and that this Bill was brought in at the suit of the Thames Conservancy. No doubt that was so; but that was the fundamental point of his objection. He objected to this Bill being brought in at the suit of the Thames Conservancy Board. He contended that it ought not to be so brought in; but that it ought to be introduced as a Public Bill upon the Motion of a Minister of the Crown. That was the whole of his case. Some confusion was attempted to be created by saying that it could not be a Hybrid Bill, because Hybrid Bills were for carrying out national works, or works in relation to Crown property, or for public objects in which the Government were concerned. Now, he utterly denied that statement in reference to Hybrid Bills; and he held that this Bill ought to be a Hybrid Public Bill. A Hybrid Bill was as much a Public Bill as any other Public Bill; but as it interfered with private rights it had to comply with the Standing Orders, like a Private Bill. It was then brought into the House, read a second time, and referred to a Hybrid Committee. Sir Erskine May's book explained to them what the difference was between a Public and a Private Bill—
    "Every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons is treated, in Parliament, as a Private Bill. Whether it be for the interest of an individual, a public company, or corporation, a parish, a city, a county, or other locality, it is equally distinguished from

    103
    a measure of public policy in which the whole community are interested,"
    Further—
    "Though a Bill relating to a city is generally held to be a Private Bill, Bills concerning the Metropolis have been dealt with as Public Bills—the large area, the number of parishes, and the variety of interests concerned, constituting them measures of public policy, rather than of local interest."
    Then Sir Erskine May proceeds to give instances in which Bills affecting the Metropolis had been dealt with as Public Bills. There were the Metropolitan Police Bills of 1828 and 1839, the Metropolis Local Management Bill of 1858, and the Main Drainage Bill of 1865, which were all passed as Public Bills. In 1851, 1852, 1878, and 1880, the Metropolitan Water Supply Bills were introduced as Public Hybrid Bills. Those Bills affected the locality of the Metropolis; and the fact that they affected the Metropolis, it was held, constituted them matters of public interest. The Thames Embankment Bills of 1862 and 1863 were introduced as Public Bills; but as private property and interests were affected the Standing Orders were complied with, and other proceedings taken as in Private Bills; and the same course was taken in 1867 and 1876 with the Metropolis Gas Bills, in 1874 with the Metropolis Water Supply and Fire Prevention Bill, and in 1877 with the Metropolitan Toll Bridge Bill. Bills affecting the City of London only have, as a rule, when dealing with the property, interests, and jurisdiction of the City, been dealt with as Private Bills; but the moment such Bills interfered in any way with the area outside the City so as to affect the public interests of the Metropolis they ceased to be Private Bills, and became Public Bills. Sir Erskine May said that Bills concerning the City of London, but, at the same time, affecting public interests and involving considerations of public policy, had been introduced and passed as Public Bills. In 1864 the Weighing of Grain (Port of London) Bill was held to be properly a Public Bill, as affecting an extensive area and a population of 3,000,000, and its object being to substitute weighing for measurement of grain. In 1870, on the second reading of the Brokers (City of London) Bill, objection being taken that it ought to have been brought in as a Private Bill, the Deputy Speaker
    104
    stated that the Bill had been referred to the Examiner, who had decided otherwise. In 1871 the Court of Hustings (City of London) Bill, which established a Court having jurisdiction over the Metropolis, was brought in as a Private Bill; but on notice being taken of the extent and public importance of the measure it was withdrawn. It would thus be seen that, although Bills which affected only the property, interests, and jurisdiction of the City were introduced as Private Bills, the moment they affected the Metropolis at large, or involved considerations of public policy, or affected public interests, they ceased to be Private, and became Public Bills. It would also be seen that the extensive area and large population themselves were sufficient to constitute a Bill a public one. So far, Bills affecting the Metropolis and the City had been dealt with. The same principles hold good in other localities. The case he was now about to refer to more nearly approached the question now before the House. In 1856 the Passing Tolls on Shipping Bill was held to be a Public Bill. It concerned the harbours of Dover, Ramsgate, Whitby, and Bridlington—abolished passing tolls, transferred these harbours to the Board of Trade, imposed rates, and repealed local Acts; but being a measure of public policy its character was not changed by the fact that these harbours only came under its operation. And, again, the Harbours Bill in 1861 affected the same four harbours and the local Acts under which they were administered, but otherwise dealt with so many matters of general legislation as to be, unquestionably, a measure of public policy. In 1875 the Dover Pier and Harbour Bill, backed by the Government for public objects, was introduced as a Public Bill, but proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. What the House would have to consider was whether this was a Bill affecting public interests. Did it involve questions of public policy? Did it affect a large area and an extensive population, and did it deal with matters of general legislation? If so, it would be no answer to say that it only affected the locality of the Thames, for it was held that, although a Bill of this character might only affect one or two harbours, that did not take away from it the character of a Public Bill, because it dealt with matters of public importance.

    105
    He would ask the House whether a Bill to abolish pilotage on the River Thames was not obviously a question of a public character? This was a Bill affecting the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Berks, Bucks, Oxford, and Wilts; and he contended that that itself would constitute it a Public Bill. Then Bills dealing with any important principle have been hitherto Public Bills. In the case of the Manchester Education Bill of 1854, which was introduced as a Private Bill, the House said it was a measure which ought not to have been so introduced, but that it ought to have been dealt with as a public measure. It had been contended that Bills dealing with the conservancy of the Thames had been hitherto, in most cases, dealt with as Private Bills. This contention he would refer to presently. He hoped ho had shown the House, not on his own authority, but on that of one whose au-authority they all recognized, what was the broad line of distinction between Public and Private Bills; and he would now ask the House to consider the provisions of the present Bill, in order to ascertain whether it came within the category of Public or Private Bills, whether it affected largo masses of the population, and whether it dealt with great questions of public policy. The propositions of this Bill were, roughly speaking, five in number. It abolished compulsory pilotage above Gravesend; it gave everyone a right to navigate the Thames without any qualification; it repealed all the powers, rights, duties, obligations, and privileges of the Water-man's Company; it increased the tonnage dues payable in the Port of London; and it constituted the Thames Conservancy Board a smoke nuisance authority in the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Berks, Bucks, Oxford, and Wilts. Now, with reference to that part which constituted the Thames Conservancy Board the smoke nuisance authority, that was altogether a new power conferred on them. They were authorized by this Bill to enter lands belonging to anyone without saying why or wherefore, to demand the production of all the plans that the owners had, and it also gave the Board power to inspect factories. There were large numbers of towns upon the banks of the Thames which were seats of very great industries, and those who were engaged
    106
    in those industries looked with some apprehension upon the creation of a new nuisance authority, it having been supposed that they were already under regulations of proper local authorities. They altogether objected to the creation of another new authority to overlook their factories and works. Even this point itself would constitute the Bill one of a public character. But the next power which it proposed to give the Conservancy was to raise the tonnage dues in the Port of London, and in order to do this it was necessary to amend a public statute—namely, the 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 32. This statute enacted that no vessels in the River Thames should be subjected to tonnage dues unless they were over 45 tons register; and by the present proposition of the Government vessels of over 20 tons register would be liable to tonnage dues. This would be a very heavy burden of taxation upon a large number of vessels, and putting aside altogether for the moment the point that it interfered seriously with a Public Act of Parliament, he thought the question, affecting, as it did, taxation, was not a proper matter for a Private Bill, but a matter of public policy that should be dealt with in a Public Bill. With reference to the navigation of the Thames, it stood at present in this way—no one could take charge of a barge or wherry of any kind, or ply for hire, without having gone through an examination, and without being properly qualified by apprenticeship, and without having become a member of the Waterman's Company, whose rights and privileges had been conferred by Act of Parliament; and, therefore, this Bill affected rights and privileges conferred by an Act of Parliament. He believed there were something like 1,200 of the watermen who would be affected by these provisions in the Bill. It might be right and proper that these men should be deprived of their privileges by Act of Parliament; but the propriety of doing so by a Private Bill, in which there was no attempt to provide any compensation for the men who were to be so deprived of their privileges, was open to grave objection; at any rate, it was a question which demanded full discussion, and that discussion could only be obtained if the measure were introduced as a Public Bill. He would not say anything with reference to the principle of abolishing

    107
    public Companies by means of a Private Bill. That might be very convenient or not; but he thought it was an objectionable course. It might be desirable to abolish certain Companies now enjoying special privileges; but it ought to be done publicly by a public legislative measure, and not by a Private Bill. He now came to another provision of the Bill—namely, the one which dealt with compulsory pilotage. It was now proposed, by a Private Bill, to repeal an important provision of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. That Act distinctly declared, in Section 353—
    "Subject to any alteration to be made by any pilotage authority in pursuance of the power hereinbefore in that behalf given, the employment of pilots shall continue to be compulsory in all districts in which the same was by law compulsory immediately before the time when this Act comes into operation."
    The River Thames was one of the districts referred to in that section. There was also given power to the pilotage authorities to make certain exemptions. The Bill now before the House proposed to abolish compulsory pilotage on the Thames. That might be very right and very proper; but his contention was simply and solely that it ought not to be done by means of a Private Bill. The question was certainly one of importance to London, and not only to London and to this country, but it was positively an international question, because every ship that came to the Thames, whether it was a foreign or a British ship, was at present subject to the law—under the Merchant Shipping Act—of compulsory pilotage, unless coming under certain exemptions. The present Bill took away the powers of the Trinity House and abolished compulsory pilotage. The House would understand the great importance of this question when he told them that the tonnage of sea-going vessels which went up the Thames in one year was something like 10,000,000 of tons; and yet this Bill proposed to deal with a matter of such enormous importance by means of a Private Local Act instead of by a public measure. It would be said, and said truly, that this question had already been investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. He only wished to refer to this in order to show the great difference of opinion which existed on this subject, and to show that it was a matter on which opinion
    108
    was pretty evenly divided. The Select Committee, it was true, in their Report, recommended the abolition of pilotage generally; but the recommendation was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, and a counter Report was proposed, which was only rejected in a similar way by the casting vote of the Chairman. This was what the counter Report said—
    "The Committee are of opinion that the evidence proves conclusively that the system of compulsory pilotage now in force, though capable of improvement in details, fulfils in a very high degree that which is admittedly its principal object, namely, the preservation of life and property from the dangers attendant on the navigation of the entrances to the various ports of the United Kingdom."
    That passage had reference to pilotage generally. Of the Thames it said that "the state of the pilotage of the Thames is not satisfactory;" but it did not recommend its abolition—on the contrary, it recommended the constitution of a pilotage authority for London, in the appointment of which the merchants and shipowners of London should have direct representation. Now, he only instanced this in order to show the necessity of having this question fully discussed before the House assented to the second reading. He wished to show that there was a divided opinion upon it. There were masses of Blue Books pro and con on the matter; he asked the House whether a question of such great national importance, and upon which there was so much difference of opinion, should be smuggled through the House at a quarter to 4 in the afternoon. It was a question that required debate, and it should be considered at the ordinary time of Public Business. He wished next to ask for the attention of the House to what he considered to be a very important point in his case. He did not rely upon it exclusively; but he thought it was a most important point. It was this—that although Thames Conservancy Bills, in regard to which he should have something to say in a moment, had been brought in and passed through the House as Private Bills, yet Bills dealing with pilotage had never been introduced as Private Bills; but they had been invariably dealt with by Public Acts of Parliament, and not by private measures. In 1853 an Act was passed vesting the right of pilotage of ships outward from

    109
    the Port of London, and the right of pilotage of ships inward to the same port, in one body of pilots subjecting them to uniform authority and control; but there was no attempt to bring that in as a Private Bill, although it only affected the Port of London, and, therefore, partook of the nature of a Private Bill. On the contrary, it was passed as a public measure. The Act of 1854—the Merchant Shipping Act—was a public measure. He had already alluded to that Act; but it was necessary to call the attention of the House to another important point in reference to it. In 1862 the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill was brought in as a Public Bill. It dealt, amongst other things, with the question of pilotage. The "reasons" which had been circulated by the promoters of the Bill said—
    "Alterations of local pilotage laws have in recent times always been made by Private Bills or Provisional Orders."
    But the promoters forgot to say that those Provisional Orders were of no validity whatever until they were assented to by Parliament, not in a Private Bill, but in a Public Bill. The Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862 actually—after stating that the Board of Trade could abolish pilotage, in any particular pilotage district, by means of a Provisional Order—said in sub-section 6 of Section 40—
    "No such Provisional Order shall take effect, unless and until the same is confirmed by Parliament, and for the purpose of procuring such confirmation the Board of Trade shall introduce into Parliament a Public General Bill or Public General Bills."
    Therefore, the Public Act of 1862 expressly guarded against such a proceeding as that which was now being attempted by the Government. Pilotage could not be abolished in any particular district by means of a Private Bill; but it distinctly provided that it should be done only by a Provisional Order, and that such Provisional Order, before it had any validity, must be confirmed by a Public Act. Notwithstanding this, the Government now came forward with the so-called Private Bill, and were endeavouring to set the provisions aside which the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862 specially enacted. In 1863, 1864, and 1865, Public Bills were introduced, confirming Provisional Orders, in conformity with the Act he had
    110
    cited, for the harbours of Hartlepool the Clyde, the Tyne, and Sunderland. They only dealt with localities; but, by virtue of the Act of 1862, it was impossible to do away with pilotage without obtaining the consent of Parliament by means of a Public Act. In 1870 and 1871, the Government of the day introduced a Bill to abolish compulsory pilotage; but they were not Private Bills, but Public Bills. He had, he hoped, thus shown to the House that, with reference to the question of pilotage, the Bills that had been introduced to abolish pilotage, without one single exception, had been Public Bills; and, in point of fact, the proceeding now adopted by the Government had been specially guarded against by the Act of 1862. There was one other point in the matter to which he desired to call the attention of the House. He had shown that the pilots of the Port of London existed under a special Act of Parliament. The Bills of 1870 and 1871 proposed to abolish compulsory pilotage; but they also contained clauses for compensating the pilots for their disestablishment, in precisely the same way as the proctors were compensated when the Divorce Act was passed. But here they had a Bill, introduced without any compensation clauses whatever, which proposed to take away privileges which had been conferred by Act of Parliament, and under which men had served their apprenticeship, and qualified themselves for the fulfilment of duties which were now to be rendered non-compulsory. And if this Bill went upstairs to a Private Bill Committee, even the Committee proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and a most conclusive case was made out by the pilots and others for compensation, the Committee would have no power to insert clauses giving compensation; and, therefore, unless the House was prepared to assent to the comfiscation of rights conferred by Act of Parliament, it ought not to give this Bill a second reading. There was another and a fatal objection, to his mind, and it was that this Private Bill repealed an important part of Section 353 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854—a public measure—and set aside the provisions of another Public Act, the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 32. He maintained that this was altogether unprecedented. A Private Bill had, on more than one occa-

    111
    sion, varied and extended Public Acts, but had never repealed and reversed the policy and principle of Public Acts. Sir Erskine May, in his book, said—
    "It has been questioned whether a Public Act may properly be repealed or amended by a Private Bill; and, undoubtedly, such provisions demand peculiar vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places. But no rule has been established which precludes the promoters of Private Bills from seeking the repeal or amendment of Public Acts, and there are precedents in which this course has been sanctioned by Parliament."
    He would ask the House to consider the precedents which Sir Erskine May gave in his book, where Public Acts had been varied or repealed by Private Acts of Parliament, and the House would see that there was not a single one which was analogous to the propositions contained in the present Bill. He was exceedingly sorry to weary the House with this matter; but it was really one which was so much of precedent that he was compelled to exhaust the subject as far as possible. The only instances of an interference with Public Acts by private ones were these. In 1832 the Bristol Riots Amendment Act of 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 31, was passed. Now, the Bristol Riots Act was simply an extension of a Public Act, in order to enable compensation to be given in Bristol for riots which had taken place there. That could by no means be a reversal of the principle of any Public Act; it was simply an extension of it. In 1864 the City of London Tithes Act repealed an Act of Henry VIII. It repealed the Act, but it re-enacted it; the only difference being that whereas the original Act made the tithes vary with the rents, this Private Bill, which amended the Public Act, placed the tithes at a fixed sum. It was assented to by the clergy, the vestry, the incumbent, the bishops, and the patrons of the livings; and the Bill was in no sense a reversal of the principles of any Public Act. And so in 1864 the Metropolitan District Railway Bill amended the Thames Embankment Act, which was a Public Act. But there was no question of principle there. The Public Act gave the City Gas Company access to the river; and the Private Bill, for the formation of a railway, provided for compensation to the City Gas Companies in case their access and privileges were in any way interfered with. These were
    112
    the whole of the Public Acts which had been amended, so far as he could ascertain, by Private Bills, and there was not one of them which reversed the principle of any Public Act, whereas this Bill absolutely reversed the principle of compulsory pilotage, which was enacted by the Act of 1854, and it increased the tonnage dues of vessels, from vessels of 45 tons to vessels of 20 tons. Now, it had been said, and it would be said again tonight, that the Thames Conservancy Bills had been introduced into that House as Private Bills. Now, if everything was to be said by the friends of this Bill that could be said upon that subject, he should contend that the Thames Conservancy Bill was by no means on all fours with the present measure. This was not a Conservancy Bill at all; it was a Pilotage Bill. The Thames Conservancy Bills were simply with reference to arrangements of traffic and keeping open the channel of the river, and dealing with piers, and other such matters; but this was altogether a different Bill, dealing with the pilotage of vessels, a matter in which they had no right to interfere, and in which they had never interfered. As a rule, the Thames Conservancy Bills had been Private Bills, and in 1857, 1867, 1870, and 1878, they had dealt, as he had said, only with matters regulating the traffic of the Thames, and piers, and the keeping open the navigation of the Thames. But there was one very remarkable provision in the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870, to which he should like to direct the attention of the House, was to this effect—it enabled the Conservancy to levy tolls; but it expressly confined this power to the levying of tolls upon vessels already subject to tolls. It said that they could collect tolls and charge the dues in respect to certain vessels now liable thereto, whereas by this Bill it gave the Thames Conservancy power to tax people who had never hitherto been taxed. One other very remarkable fact about these Bills was this. So long as they confined themselves to questions merely affecting the proper conservancy of the Thames, they had been Private Bills; but in 1864 he found a Public Bill—the Thames Conservancy Act of 1869, and on trying to ascertain how it happened to be a Public Bill, while all the other Bills were private ones, he discovered that it proposed to do, to a certain extent, exactly what this

    113
    Bill proposed to do. The Act of 1864 was not confined simply to the ordinary conservancy of the Thames. Section 49 said—"The powers given to the Trinity House to erect sea-marks, &c., is repealed," and that necessitated the repeal of a Public Act of Parliament, as this Bill did. Section 50 amended the Merchant Shipping Act of 1864, as this Bill did. Section 63 amended the Water-man's Company Act again, as this Bill did; and it was in consequence of these, amongst other things, that it was a Public Bill. The House would see that these were some of the very things the present Bill proposed; and therefore it ought, like the Act of 1864, to be a public measure. He hoped he had, though at some length, shown the House that it had hitherto been the practice to deal with matters of public interest by Public Bills; and he had further shown that this Bill, in every one of the provisions he had called attention to, dealt with a question of public interest. Matters affecting large areas, many counties, and large populations, were matters hitherto dealt with by Public Bills; and, seeing that this Bill affected eight counties, many towns, and large populations; that no Bill which dealt with pilotage in the manner it was proposed to be dealt with in this Bill had ever been brought forward as a Private Bill; but that the Act of 1862 specially provided that legislation of this nature must be by means of a Public Bill; and seeing, further, that such questions had always been so dealt with, he saw no reason why, on this occasion, they should take an exceptional course. He had shown that the Conservancy Bills did not deal with pilotage; that there was no precedent whatever for reversing a principle contained in a Public Act by means of a Private Bill; and that this Bill did reverse the principle of Public Acts. He had also shown that although the Thames Conservancy Bills had been Private Bills, the moment they proposed to repeal Public Acts they ceased to be Private Bills, and were brought in as Public Bills. But, before concluding his remarks, there was another point he might mention, and that was the extraordinary mode in which the Bill had been introduced. It was very well known that a Private Bill must be introduced into that House with the names of two Members upon the back of it; and, as a rule, the Members who were interested
    114
    in the locality affected by the measure were readily induced to place their names upon the back of the Bill; but, on turning to the back of this Bill, he was unable to find the names of either of the Members for the City of London, or of the Members for any of the counties or towns over which this Bill proposed to give authority to the Conservancy; but they would find the names of the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and of the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley). The circumstance was totally unprecedented in the history of that House. It was no answer to say, as he had no doubt would be said, that in one particular case the name of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) was upon the back of a Private Bill. That was no case in point. The Bill which the right hon. Gentleman's name was attached to was a Bill upon which the names of two Members for the locality were also placed as the introducers of the Bill. The name of the right hon. Gentleman was added simply to show that the assent of the Board of Trade had been obtained to the provisions contained in the measure. And what was that Bill? Was it a Bill dealing with a question of great principle such as the Bill now before the House? It was a Bill for the purpose of placing part of the river under a Public Act which had been passed in the previous Session, and in the Public Act itself there was a clause, stating that it was desirable, upon the first opportunity, that the provisions of the Act should be extended to that particular part of the river. The House would see at once the great difference between the present case and that of the Bill to which the right hon. Member for North Devon had attached his name. He had seen it stated in the papers, he thought in the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in receiving a deputation on this subject, that the reason why the Board of Trade had placed the names of their Representatives upon the back of the Bill was that the Thames Conservancy had no direct representation in that House. That was merely throwing dust in the eyes of people. Did the hon. Gentleman maintain that there was direct representation in that

    115
    House for the 100th part of the persons or public bodies who presented Petitions for Private Bills in that House? The Bills wore taken charge of, as a rule, by Members who were interested in the locality. If, however, there had ever been a body which had representation in that House, it was the Thames Conservancy. They were, until a few days ago, represented by two Members in that House—two Members of the Thames Conservancy—one of them being the Lord Mayor and the other a Gentleman whose loss, he was sure, every Member of that House, to what ever Party he belonged, must, not only for the sake of the House, but for the sake of the public generally, greatly deplore—he meant the loss of his lamented Friend Sir Charles Reed. The House would thus feel that there was not the slightest pretence for saying that there was no one to take charge of tile Bill, and that, therefore, the Board of Trade had kindly taken charge of it. He had no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade took charge of every Bill which had no father for it, he would soon be overwhelmed with children of that sort. But the real fact was that it was not a Conservancy Bill at all; it was a Board of Trade Bill; it was conceived and created in the Board of Trade; it was the outcome of a Board of Trade inquiry, and it had nothing whatever to do with the Thames Conservancy. He would like to put a question to the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He hoped the hon. Member was listening, because he expected him to answer the question. He would ask the hon. Gentleman distinctly, whether it was or was not a fact that the Bill was originally intended by the Board of Trade to be a Public Bill in the ordinary way; and was it or was it not a suggestion on the part of the Board of Trade to the Thames Conservancy that they should petition to have it passed through the House of Commons as a Private Bill? He asked this because there was rumour that it was originally intended to introduce the Bill as a Public Bill, and that it was at the suggestion of the Board of Trade that the Thames Conservancy Board came forward to father the Bill. He was afraid that he had trespassed on the attention of the House at considerable length; but he hoped not at undue length, con-
    116
    sidering the great importance of the issue. He desired to impress upon the House again that he was not asking them to pass any opinion upon the merits of the Bill. It might be a good Bill or it might be a bad Bill; with that he had nothing to do, but he had to ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider whether it was right and proper that the Government, presuming on the large majority behind them, should so tamper with the Rules and Regulations for the transaction of Business in that House, as to attempt, by means of a Private Bill, to pass through a measure dealing with questions of great national importance, and of general legislation, in the way they were attempting to do by the present measure. He repeated, that if the House assented to the Amendment he intended to move, it would be simply assenting to a Resolution which declared that the Bill ought to be a Public Bill and not a private one; and if that Resolution were agreed to there was nothing to hinder the Government from bringing forward the Bill to-morrow in the ordinary course by means of a public measure, and passing it into law in the course of the ensuing Session. He begged to move the Resolution which appeared in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word. "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the character and objects of this Bill are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy, which ought not to be dealt with by any-Private Bill,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the question now before the House was one upon which he did not desire to say much after the very long and able speech which had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in submitting the Resolution. He should not refer to the clauses of the Bill any further than might be necessary for the purpose of indicating that he thought the Bill ought to be a Public Bill and not a private one. But upon one point he wished to be distinctly understood. He was not objecting to the measure because he objected to the principle of the Bill as described in the Preamble.

    117
    He felt as strongly as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that the question of compulsory pilotage ought to be dealt with at once, for it had been a disgrace for years past to everyone concerned—a disgrace to the Board of Trade, a disgrace to the Trinity Board, and a disgrace to many rich owners of large vessels who, for years, had been sheltering themselves by registering their vessels in the Port of Glasgow or elsewhere, although they belonged to the Port of London. They did this in order to screen themselves from the costs and charges of damage incurred when they ran into craft on the river, because they were enabled to plead that their vessels were in charge of a compulsory pilot. He desired, as a matter of principle, to protest against the Bill which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade being dealt with as a Private Bill. It had not been his lot to have any very large experience of the Rules and Orders which controlled and directed Private Bills in that House; but from what little he did know, and from what he had heard from the greatest authority in the matter—namely, the Chairman of Committees, he considered that there might be much mischief in introducing a Bill of this kind in this way, as it was placing a measure of such great importance, endorsed and brought in by two Members of the Ministry, in the hands of private promoters and of Parliamentary agents. He was told that practically a Private Bill was in charge of a Parliamentary agent, who acted for the promoters, and that it was a rule never to refuse to allow a Private Bill to be withdrawn if the promoters felt their interests were being affected by any Amendments to the Bill. He should, perhaps, be told that though this was practically right, technically it was wrong, and that a Private Bill could not be removed from the House except with the consent of the House. But he had made inquiries upon that point, and he found that there was not a single precedent for refusing consent to the Parliamentary agent to withdraw the Bill if anything happened to be suggested which was prejudicial to the interests of the promoters. If the present Bill went to a second reading, and a Committee were appointed, it would be impossible to prevent the Committee
    118
    from considering the constitution of the Conservancy Board. They had upon the Paper now a Notice of Motion affecting the Thames Conservancy; but supposing an Amendment were introduced to alter the constitution of the Board, the Members of the Conservancy Board would feel that they might lose their position if they kept the Bill before the House, and they would, therefore, withdraw it. Now, he thought the House must see that large and important interests of a public character were contained in the Bill; and he ventured to say that the measure was not a Conservancy Bill at all; but it was, to all intents and purposes, a Pilotage Bill. The Preamble said that it was desirable to abolish compulsory pilotage. Now, this question of compulsory pilotage had been a scandal for a great many years. He would only go back as far as 1870, when a Pilotage Bill was brought in; and it was felt to be a subject that ought not to be dealt with by a Private Bill. It was said that it only proposed to deal with pilotage. Nevertheless, it was made a Public Bill, and it was referred to a large Committee. That Committee sat for several months in 1870 and made a Report, and the materials in that Report were most important, and ought to be considered in discussing the Bill now before the House. In 1871, another Pilotage Bill was brought in—a Public Bill—based upon the Report of the Committee of 1870, and he desired especially to call attention to the two principles of that Bill. Clause 1 proposed to abolish compulsory pilotage just as the present Bill did, with a little difference in form. Clause 2 gave compensation for diminution of earnings to the persons injured by the abolition of compulsory pilotage. He wished Members of the House to bear in mind the second part of the Bill. Well, the next thing they had was a Report from a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade for the purpose of making a Departmental inquiry. That Committee sat in 1879, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated to some members of a deputation who waited upon him a short time ago in reference to the questions contained in this Bill that the present measure was based upon the recommendations of that Report. What was the last recommendation of that Report—the Report

    119
    of a Committee appointed by the Department? These were the words—
    "Lastly, as regards any question of vested interests or compensation, your Committee believe that they must be dealt with by the Executive Government in carrying out what is proposed in the Report."
    What did the Government do? They brought in a Bill as a Private Bill without a single clause with regard to vested interests and compensation, and by making it a Private Bill they precluded the possibility of introducing any clause making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of compensating anyone who might be entitled to it. He was not there to say that this class of persons or that class of persons ought to be compensated. He had simply read the recommendations of the Committee, and they said that the question ought to be considered. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members on both sides of the House whether it was fair to bring in a Bill to preclude the possibility of anyone getting compensation. If they were not going to give compensation, at any rate, let them allow discussion upon it. If any man possessed rights, he should have an opportunity of stating his case in order to see whether his claim was one that Parliament ought to consent to, and they ought not to shut him out by refusing to allow his claim to be discussed at all. Then there was another strong objection to this Bill being a Private Bill. The promoters of the Bill were not satisfied with simply dealing with matters affecting the Conservancy of the River Thames. They desired, in Clauses 29 and 30, to interfere with one of the most important manufactures on the banks of the Thames. They were seeking to obtain powers which would enable them to determine whether or not furnaces used by cement manufacturers were properly constructed or not. It might be very proper that there should be an inquiry; but he wanted to point out that there was a Public Bill for discussion on Thursday which proposed to raise that question, and which proposed to give by a Public Bill powers to Inspectors to determine whether it was or was not carried on in a proper way. He asked the House to say that such legislation ought to be proposed in a Public Bill, and not in a Private Bill. He thought that it was unfair in a Pri-
    120
    vate Bill to seek to create a new smoke authority giving powers beyond the powers granted by Parliament in legislation upon this subject. He thought it was unfair in a Private Bill to seek to extend the limits of the Smoke Nuisances Act, which, he believed, was a public measure; and when that Act was passed there was a sort of compromise made that the Act should extend to certain limited manufactures, and not to all manufactures, and within those limits alone they would subject themselves to penalties. Now, he ventured to say that many millions had been spent on the banks of the Thames in cement, and if this trade was to be dealt with, let it be dealt with by a public measure. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had touched upon almost everything that it was necessary to mention. Therefore, he would simply ask the Heuse not to assent to the proposal; he did not ask the House to reject it. The Bill ought to be considered; it was of great public importance, and he trusted that the Government would consent to bring it in as a Public Bill, and that they would all have an opportunity of discussing it, and that every hon. Member might have an opportunity of expressing the feelings and views of those of his constituents who were affected by it.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, it must be a great satisfaction to his hon. Friend, after having so long a time been straining on the leash, to have at last a spring at the Board of Trade by bringing forward his Motion against this abominable Bill. But he must say that the eloquence which the hon. Member had shown might have been employed in a better cause, because he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) hoped, before he sat down, to be able to convince the House that the provisions of the measure were such as ought to be brought forward in a Private Bill. He would begin first of all by answering what had been said as to the Government withdrawing this Bill, and not bringing it in again as a Public Bill. He believed that it was impossible to do so. He was informed by authorities in whom they had confidence that the Standing Orders could not be complied with, that the Notices given were exhausted, and that, therefore, the Bill could not go on, but would disappear altogether, as it would be unable to pass in the present

    121
    Session at all. That, he believed, from what he was informed, was a correct view, and he was speaking on the authority of one conversant with these matters. But he would like to make one remark. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about "squaring" Members. He had no objection to the use of these words; but it struck him that there had been a great deal more "squaring" and Lobbying by the opponents of the Bill than by the promoters. He gathered that what the hon. Gentleman referred to was simply this—There were certain Members interested in the upper navigation who came to the promoters of the Bill and said that they did not disapprove of the Bill as a whole, but that they objected to certain clauses which would give undue power to the Conservancy Board in the matter of entering on lands. Well, the matter had been inquired into, and the answer given was that they would communicate with the Conservancy. Ultimately, they did inform the Conservancy that the powers asked for on their behalf were much too great and too vast, and they undertook that when the Bill came into Committee the clause should be qualified so as only to give the Conservancy the ordinary powers of a sanitary authority.
    MR. RITCHIEremarked, that it was made a condition of the undertaking being given that the Members referred to withdrew their opposition.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that was so. The hon. Gentleman opposite put him in a very difficult position. He would tell the House why. The hon. Member began by stating that he had nothing to say against the merits of the Bill, and that, as far as he knew, he believed the merits were all right. Further, the hon. Member was ready to admit that technically it might be a Private Bill. The question, therefore, reduced itself to this—that although the Parliamentary technicalities sanctioned this as a Private Bill, and although the merits of the Bill ought to be supported, still the hon. Gentleman opposite preferred that it should not be brought in as a Private Bill. He would like to consult the preferences of the hon. Member; but, nevertheless, if it were brought in as a Public Bill, he did not think the hon. Member would be satisfied.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Member would remember that he had said if the Government introduced the Bill as a Public Bill he would undertake not to put down a Notice of opposition.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that was because it happened to be introduced as a Private Bill; but he would show the House that the measure was compatible with the law of Parliament in connection with Private Bills. First of all, Sir Erskine May told them that every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person, or persons, was treated as a Private Bill, whether it was for the interest of the individual, a public company, a county, or other locality. He supposed the hon. Member would not deny that this was a locality. The Thames was, no doubt, often called by our minor poets an imperial stream; but, like any other stream, it had its "metes and bounds; "and the measure was for the benefit of those interested in the navigation of this special river. A Private Bill dealt with an exception to the general law, as in this case, all which, therefore, would be covered by the definition given by Sir Erskine May. The hon. Member seemed to think that the test of a Private Bill was whether the matters dealt with by it were of great importance. Now, what could be more important than the constitution of the City of London Police Court? Yet that was established by a Private Bill. Wherever there was a Corporation, or Commissioners, or a body, having jurisdiction over an entire area, they could come forward as petitioners for a Private Bill. The Standing Orders enabled them to present a Petition to that House, and upon that Petition leave was granted them to bring forward a Private Bill, and it was not necessary for them to proceed by Motion, as it would be in the case of a Public Bill. That was the answer he had to make to the long list of cases which the hon. Member quoted, in which the measures referred to were not brought in as Private Bills. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the fact that the Metropolitan Water and Gas Bills had been introduced as Public Bills. The real fact of the matter was that in those cases there was no person or body who represented the area concerned. Almost all the Bills introduced in connection with the Corporation of London had been Private Bills, because

    123
    the Corporation covered the whole area; and in the same way the Thames Conservancy Bills, with two exceptions, had been brought in as Private Bills, because the Thames Conservators had jurisdiction over the whole area. The two exceptions were Bills introduced in 1864 and 1867. The reason why they were not brought in as Private Bills was because they were brought in, in a certain sense, adversely to the Thames Conservancy Board. Their object, in point of fact, was to reform the Thames Conservancy, and they were opposed to the views of the Thames Conservators in certain respects. Therefore, the Thames Conservators did not appear as petitioners, and those Bills were brought in on Motion and not on Petition. But the Thames Conservancy Acts of 1867, 1870, and 1878, were passed as Private Bills, and were brought in on the petition of the Conservators as Private Bills. The London Corporation Bill, which dealt with the important matter of the municipal franchise of the City of London, and with the relief of the inhabitants from taxation, was also brought in as a Private Bill. Objection was taken to the introduction of that Bill as a private measure; but Mr. Speaker said—
    "It cannot be questioned that the Bill is, according to Standing Orders, a Private Bill, inasmuch as it is brought forward on the petition of a corporate body."
    He had already said that the Thames Conservancy Acts, every one of them, with the exception of the two he had mentioned, were brought in and introduced as Private Bills on Petition, and not as Public Bills upon Motion. The hon. Member said—"Oh! but this is a thoroughly wrong principle. You are introducing a Bill as a private measure which modifies existing Acts of Parliament;" but the hon. Member anticipated him by quoting from Sir Erskine May's work on Parliamentary practice which argued against the view he took. But the hon. Member proceeded to disparage this statement—in fact, he only relied on Sir Erskine May when Sir Erskine's view was favourable to him. The hon. Member came down to the House with a text-book, and he ought to say whether it was a good authority or whether it was not. In the early part of his speech he quoted Sir Erskine May as an authority; but when he found
    124
    that Sir Erskine May went against him on the question that a Private Act never modified a Public Act, then he said that he disagreed with Sir Erskine May. Now, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) ventured to say that Sir Erskine May laid down what was quite right when he said that a Private Act might modify a Public Act, because it was done almost every day in the year—for instance, in Improvement Acts, which modified the General Sanitary Acts. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to those points urged by the hon. Member as constituting points of so much importance that the measure ought not to be dealt with as a Private Bill, and to show that there was no real modification of Public Acts. First of all, the hon. Member took the question of compulsory pilotage. Now, that question of compulsory pilotage was in no way the creation or the creature of Public Acts. If hon. Members would look at the Report of the Committee of 1870 on Pilotage, they would see what the Committee said at the beginning of that Report. They said—
    "In fact, the existence or non-existence of the obligation, and the nature and extent of the exemptions from it, differ in such an arbitrary and capricious manner as to show that they must have arisen fron local and special legislation without reference to general principles of any kind."
    Hon. Members would find that the custom of compulsory pilotage varied in almost every port of the Kingdom, and that it was not the creation of public enactments, but almost always the result of custom or a Private Bill. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to suppose that compulsory pilotage was the rule of every English port; but one-half of the ports of England had no compulsory pilotage at all, and, indeed, in this very Port of London there were many ships which went up every day, and which were exempt from compulsory pilotage. He believed, in point of fact, that two-thirds were already exempted by law from compulsory pilotage. What could be stronger than the fact, which the hon. Member slurred over, that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, in the three following sections, provided:—
    "Sec. 332. Every pilotage authority shall have power, by bye-law made with the consent of Her Majesty in Council, to exempt the masters of any ships, or of any class of ships;

    125
    from being compelled to employ qualified pilots, and to annex any terms or conditions to such exemptions, and to revise and extend any exemptions now existing by virtue of this Act or any other Act of Parliament, Law, or Charter, or by usage, upon such terms and conditions, and in such manner, as may appear desirable to such authority.
    "Sec. 353. Subject to any alteration to be made by any pilotage authority in pursuance of the powers hereinbefore in that behalf given, the employment of pilots shall continue to be compulsory in all districts in which the same was (by law) compulsory immediately before the time when this Act comes into operation.
    "Sec. 376. Subject to any alteration to be made by the Trinity House (and to the) the pilotage districts of the Trinity House within which the employment of pilots if compulsory in the London District, &c., &c."
    So that the Trinity House might actually do that on their own motion, which was now proposed to be attempted by a Private Act. The hon. Member quoted the Act of 1862, which empowered the abolition of compulsory pilotage by a Provisional Order; but he said that the Provisional Order must be ratified by a Public General Act. But how ran the law upon the question? The Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, Section 39, provided—
    "Whereas it is enacted by the principal Act that every pilotage authority shall have power to exempt the masters of any ships, or of any classes of ships, from being compelled to employ qualified pilots, &c., &c. Be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Board of Trade by Provisional Order to
    "4. Exempt the masters and owners of all ships, or of any classes of ships, from being obliged to employ pilots in any pilotage district, or in any part of any pilotage district."
    Did the hon. Member know that every Provisional Order, however insignificant its subject-matter, whatever the subject it dealt with, had to be ratified by a corresponding General Act at the end of the Session; therefore, what the hon. Member stated only amounted to this—that any Pilotage Provisional Order must be dealt with in the usual way; but it was rather strong to say in regard to a subject which, as he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had shown, might be dealt with by the Board of Trade by a Provisional Order, and by the pilotage authorities, without coming to Parliament at all, that it was of so sacred a character that it could not be dealt with by a Private Act. The hon. Member next referred to the case of the Waterman's Company; but the case of the Waterman's Com-
    126
    pany must fail absolutely. Was the hon. Member aware that the Water-man's Company, at the present moment, was the creature and creation of a Private Act? [Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE: No, no!] Well, the powers granted to it, and which it now enjoyed, were conferred upon it by the Waterman's and Lighterman's Act of 1859, which was passed as a Private Act, and repealed from Acts, and if they could not deal with a body and corporation which were the creation of a Private Act by another Private Act he did not see how they could bring in any Private Act at all. The third point the hon. Member referred to was the Tonnage Act, the Act of William IV., which he said was repealed and modified by this Act. Again, he called the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Tonnage Act, 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 32, which this Bill modified merely by reducing the minimum of tonnage liable to pay those dues, was virtually a local Act, because it was an Act which empowered the King to levy dues upon ships for the benefit of the Corporation of London. The whole of these dues went to the Corporation of London, who were then the harbour authorities. Was the hon. Member aware that the powers of that Act, and the dues leviable under it, were all transferred to the Thames Conservancy Board by a Private Act of Parliament? It was a fact that one of the Thames Conservancy Acts transferred all these questions; and why, then, did the hon. Gentleman object now, in 1881, to the identical thing which was done by a Private Act in 1867? The other point alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was that the Bill constituted the Thames Conservancy a smoke nuisance authority; and he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) could only say that there was a very strong recommendation on the part of the Committee that something should be done by Parliament in this respect. It was alleged that the navigation of the river was seriously impeded and damaged by the smoke which at present arose from the cement works, and it was suggested that something should be done to check the nuisance. Clauses had been introduced into the Bill to deal with the matter; but it was proposed to deal with it in a guarded manner. If it was found that the navigation was impeded by the smoke coming across the river, then

    127
    the Thames Conservancy would be empowered to go to the owners of the cement works and call upon them to abate the nuisance. He ventured to think that this was a matter which a Committee upstairs would be quite able to deal with, and if the Bill was a little too sweeping in its character it might be modified. These particular provisions were certainly in no way inconsistent with the provisions usually inserted in Private Bills. The hon. Member said that the measure should be a public measure, because it subjected ships to tolls they were never before subjected to.
    MR. RITCHIE: What I alluded to was the power this Bill gives to the Thames Conservancy to extend the power of levying tolls upon ships of 45 tons to ships of 20 tons.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he had already dealt with that question, and he had shown that it had already been dealt with by a Private Bill. As to the grave charge which the hon. Member brought against the Board of Trade of having put their names upon the back of the Bill, the hon. Member talked as if it were one of the greatest outrages ever known. Now, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) said, in the first place, that if they were sinning at all they were sinning in good company. As the hon. Gentleman had already pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had placed his name on the back of a Private Conservancy Bill when he was President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had also placed his upon the back of a Private Railway (Plymouth and Totnes) Bill when he was First Lord of the Admiralty—a railway in a district with which he was not in any way connected as a Member of Parliament. Now, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) did think it would be an objectionable thing for a Minister of the Crown to put his name upon the back of a Bill that was brought in by private persons for their own private emolument; but he saw nothing wrong in placing their names on the back of a Bill promoted, as this was, by a Corporation charged with serious duties, who wished to obtain powers to enable them the better to carry out those duties. There had been no secret about it. The Thames Conservancy brought in this Bill on petition at their own expense;
    128
    and he and his right hon. Friend put their names on the back because they thought the object of the measure was good and they wished to give it their assistance. No doubt they could easily enough have obtained the names of other hon. Members to have followed theirs. It was perfectly certain that if they had imagined that that would have pleased the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets they could have done so without the slightest difficulty; but they had no object in throwing dust in the eyes of the public. They had come forward as the guardians of the public for the purpose of keeping control of the Bill and pressing the matter upon the House of Commons, and they had made no secret of their intention. It seemed to him that it dealt with nothing unusual, and that there was nothing unprecedented in the course they had taken; and he confessed that he himself could not see upon what grounds the Motion of his hon. Friend was brought forward. Then, as to the question of compensation which had been alluded to by various speakers, he hoped if the Bill went before a Committee of that House that the Committee would require strong evidence in order to satisfy themselves that compensation should be granted to the pilots, and for this reason—that, so far as he was aware, all the evidence went to show that there would be just as much work for the pilots when pilotage was not compulsory as there was now. Let it be distinctly understood, because there was great misapprehension about it, that the Bill did not interfere in any way with the private or peculiar privileges of the licensed pilots. It left them as they were, subject to the control and licence of the Trinity House. All they said was that no ships should be required to take pilots compulsorily above Gravesend; and even then, as he had already said, the whole evidence went to show that there would be as many pilots employed as before. It only stood to reason that captains coming from a sea voyage, and knowing the crowded and confined state of traffic on the river, and the difficulties of the navigation, must always require the assistance of a pilot; but if it was considered desirable that the pilots should receive compensation there would be no difficulty on that point. So far as the question of pilotage was

    129
    concerned, they might even strike out the pilotage clause altogether without interfering with the rest of the Bill; but if they thought it was desirable that the pilots should have compensation, they would only have to come down to this House and get a Resolution passed that compensation should be given, and he had no doubt that proper steps would be taken to obtain compensation for them. There would be no difficulty in the matter at all, and if the pilots proved that they were entitled to compensation they would get it; but he believed there was no ground for compensation in the case at all. There were one or two other points upon which it was necessary that he should touch, because the hon. Member had certainly managed to put a great many points into his speech. The hon. Member said that there was this disadvantage in a Private Bill, as compared with a Public one, that Public Bills were distributed to Members, whilst Private Bills were not. Now, he would remind the hon. Member that Private Bills were always to be got. It was merely a question of walking, when they came down to the House, as far as the Private Bill Office. There was this additional fact, that Private Bills could be obtained before Parliament met, whereas a Public Bill was not usually printed and circulated until the day before the second reading. The hon. Member had said he did not dispute the merits of the Bill; but he thought, as he had charge of the Bill, that he ought to say two or three words in regard to its merits. Now, the evils of compulsory pilotage were three-fold, and necessitated a great amount of confusion in the pilotage service. Of the number of vessels which went from Gravesend to London Bridge, one-half had to take compulsory pilots, whilst the other half had not. In point of fact, there were three kinds of pilots to serve the ships. They charged different rates, and received different payments for the same service. Compulsory pilotage was regarded as a serious tax upon the shipowner, and the evidence went to show that if they did away with the charge for compulsory pilotage, all they would do would be to throw the pilots into one class, by which means they would ensure better discipline, uniformity of charge, prevent a great (teal of confusion which existed in
    130
    the navigation of the river, and generally have the pilotage service better rendered. At present there was this difficulty in regard to compulsory pilotage. The employment of a pilot under compulsion gave the shipowner immunity in case of a running down. Cases of this sort occurred—two ships came almost from the same place, the one obliged to carry a pilot and the other not obliged; the ship obliged to carry a pilot was free from all liability, while the other was liable to pay for damage. As to the Waterman's Company, there was also a very strong case, and one that called for an immediate remedy. He was unwilling to detain the House, because he was afraid that he had already been a great deal longer than he ought to have been; but he wanted to point out to hon. Members that the principal provisions of the Bill were founded upon the Report of the Thames Traffic Committee. That Committee was appointed by the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon) who was then at the head of the Board of Trade, and in consequence of a collision upon the river, in which a large number of lives were lost. The Committee of Inquiry into the collision of the Princess Alice, stated in their Report that the accident was largely owing to the control of the navigation being under the Water-man's Act. The Waterman's Company had originally certain duties to perform, in consequence of which they were liable to be impressed for service in the Royal Navy, and, in spite of that liability having been removed, their privileges had still been continued. There was, again, a claim on the part of the Waterman's Company to a concurrent jurisdiction with the Metropolitan Board as to the police of the river. Another evil of the monopoly was that, under some circumstances, steam-boats were compelled to change their crews and engage men belonging to the Water-man's Company. For instance, a steamboat might, during the summer, be running daily between Ramsgate or Sheerness and London Bridge; and in the event of the proprietors choosing to put the vessel on from Gravesend to London Bridge during the winter months, they would be obliged to dismiss the whole of their crew and re-engage another belonging to the Waterman's Company.

    131
    Hon. Members would see from the evidence that barge-owners, wharf-owners, pilots, dock-masters, officials of the Customs and Board of Trade, and Thames police, all united in condemning in the strongest manner the longer existence of the privileges of the Waterman's Company, and that the only persons who were in favour of their continuance were the watermen themselves. There was no question of disestablishing the Waterman's Company as a Guild; all that it was proposed to do was to take away their special privileges, leaving them in the enjoyment of their property. In conclusion, he would only say there never was any intention of sending the Bill to an ordinary Private Bill Committee; on the contrary, it had been the intention from the first that it should be examined by a Select Committee. He trusted the House would not be led away by an abstract discussion upon the right method of introducing this subject, and thereby delay the passage of a measure containing provisions of the greatest importance, which would, in his opinion, tend very much to improve the navigation of the River Thames.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I would ask Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for two Ministers of the Crown to bring in a Private Bill on business of their own Department with only their own names upon it?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me whether it is out of Order for two Official Members to place their names on the back of a Private Bill. Two cases have already been cited by the hon. Member the Under Secretary to the Board of Trade in which Official names have appeared on Private Bills. I cannot say I think the practice a convenient practice; but, as there are precedents for it, I am not prepared to say it is out of Order.
    MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your attention to the particular point as to whether there is any precedent for a Private Bill appearing in this House with only the two names of Official Members upon it?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am not aware of any precedent of that kind.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he did not propose to go into the merits or the demerits of this measure. He proposed rather to endeavour to answer
    132
    a few of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought the Under Secretary to the Board of Trade had succeeded in proving the case of those who, like himself (Baron Henry De Worms), believed that this Bill ought to be a Public and not a Private Bill. He had been gratified to hear, at the commencement of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, an admission that the Bill had been brought in by the Board of Trade, although he could not help feeling that much time would have been saved to the House had that admission been made at an earlier period. [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: I did not make that admission.] He begged pardon of the hon. Gentleman; but he had understood him to say that it was a Board of Trade Bill. He had taken down his words. However, as the hon. Gentleman now said the Bill was not brought in by the Board of Trade, he could only accept the explanation he gave, although it was difficult to reconcile that statement with the fact that the only names on the Bill were those of the two heads of the Department. But the question was not only one of law or of right; it was not a question simply whether, legally or technically, the Bill should be a Public or a Private Bill. He ventured to think it was also a question of expediency that was involved. Although they had heard many reasons why, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Board of Trade, it should be a Private Bill, they had heard from him no argument whatever to show why it should not have been a Public Bill. There was, however, one special reason which, in his (Baron Henry De Worms') opinion, indicated why it should be a Public Bill, and that point had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sidney Waterlow)—namely, compensation to the watermen. That question might, of course, appear a very insignificant one to hon. Members opposite; but he ventured to think that those Gentlemen who above all others were, as a rule, so fond of arrogating to themselves the protection of the working classes, should, as a matter of fact, consider that, in introducing this measure in a private form, they were virtually depriving many thousands of honest workmen of employment, and

    133
    also of the compensation to which they would have been entitled, had the measure been brought in as a Public Bill. Another argument of great strength against the Bill being made private was to be found in the fact that the expenditure of public time would not have been greater had the measure been introduced, as it ought to have been, as a Public Bill. A small amount of time was allotted by the Rules of the House to Private Business, and this was generally found to be amply sufficient for the purpose; but it was clear that the present debate would be prolonged, and would thereby show the inconvenience of the system adopted in the present instance by the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill. With regard to the reasons which had prompted them in bringing in this Bill as a private and not as a public measure, he ventured to think that one of them might be found, if rumour was to be credited, in the fact which was whispered in the Lobby and elsewhere, that it was anticipated the Bill as a public measure might meet with a certain amount of opposition from Gentlemen who sat below the Gangway. If that were the reason—and he had good grounds for thinking it was—it would form a somewhat dangerous precedent, because if, whenever opposition was apprehended, it was to be in the power of the Government of the day to introduce what was really a public measure under the guise of a Private Bill, it was very difficult to know where the application of this principle would stop. With regard to the Bill itself, it had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill did not involve any question of money, and that, therefore, the Thames Conservators were allowed to introduce it as a private measure, the officials of the Department of the Board of Trade placing their names on the back of it. But had it not occurred to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill, which dealt with the interests of thousands of persons and with millions of money, was hardly a measure which should be confided to the hands of a public body, however respectable that body might be? He was reading the other day a description by an old writer of public bodies quite as respectable as the Thames Conservancy, and had been struck with the reference to the freedom from personal responsibility
    134
    enjoyed by individual members of corporate bodies. The lines ran thus—
    "Corporate bodies they, each member free
    From personal responsibility.
    In what they say there's often many a flaw;
    But that's no matter—what they say is law."
    That definition met, in some measure, the case in point. The Thames Conservancy was to take in hand the whole of the Queen's highway—the River Thames—termed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, "a locality." Of course, it was not to be disputed that every part of the country was a locality; still, he thought in legislation they must be to some extent guided by the importance of the locality, as well as the importance of the interests immediately connected with it; and he said that the hon. Gentlemen opposite had in no way made out a case for handing over the River Thames in its entirety, and the interests of all connected with it, without compensation, to the Thames Conservators. Why the liberties, privileges, and rights affecting a vast amount of capital should be handed over to the Thames Conservators had not been shown. At the present time the whole of the management of the River Thames was vested in five bodies. He thought it would have been a more statesmanlike act on the part of the Board of Trade if, instead of creating a new body, they had endeavoured to place the whole of the river under the control of that Department. Hon. Members often heard Questions asked in that House as to the power of the Government to make such and such a Vestry do certain things, the answer invariably being that it was impossible to interfere with the Vestry, because they did not choose to be interfered with. Now that, he thought, was a strong argument against creating a new Vestry, and vesting in them all the rights and privileges connected with the River Thames and its navigation. He would conclude by recording his opinion that the Goverment would do well and wisely were they to adopt the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to withdraw the Bill and re-introduce it as a public measure, in which form it might not meet with the kind of opposition now offered to it.
    MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, the House had heard from the highest authority that evening, that there was no precedent for two Ministers of the Crown

    135
    placing their names alone on the back of a Private Bill. That, he thought, was in itself a sufficient reason for at once rejecting the present Bill, because they ought to be very cautious of setting precedents of that kind. What was the reason for introducing the Bill in its present form? He could not congratulate the Secretary to the Board of Trade upon the defence he had made of the Bill on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman had said the Bill was made private on the ground of convenience; but he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) was obliged to say of the reasons he had adduced in support of the measure, that it was almost impossible for anyone to allow their validity. He objected to this Bill altogether. It was called a Conservator's Bill by the Board of Trade; but he had himself spoken with the Conservators, and they told him it was a Board of Trade Bill. Of course, he believed both statements, and looked upon the measure as a concoction, or stirring up together, of the views of the Thames Conservancy and the views of the Board of Trade. He knew the Conservators were anxious to carry their portion of the Bill, and that they were ready to submit to any terms and suggestions that might be made to them by the Board of Trade. The House was aware that the Thames Conservancy was a comparatively newly-formed body, and all newly-formed bodies were at all times anxious to extend what was called their sphere of usefulness, and promote the advantage of the public. In the present case, he must say that this was not to be done without carrying out some little interested views of their own. When the Thames Conservators were first appointed they had £1,200 paid to them, which sum was to be divided amongst themselves in the manner they might think proper. He believed they divided the money amongst themselves according to the number of attendances in the course of the year. Shortly after this a Public Bill was brought in extending their jurisdiction from Staines to Yanlet Reach; and it was then proposed to increase the £1,200 a-year which they were receiving to £1,800 a-year. Another Bill was subsequently brought in, which further extended their jurisdiction from Staines to Cricklade, and an additional £700 a-year was given to the Conservators, making altogether
    136
    £2,500 a-year. The present Bill would place immense responsibility on the Conservators. It empowered them to deal with the smoke nuisance along the river from Cricklade to Yanlet, and to impose a great charge upon the community along their line of jurisdiction. It also gave them the right to put out any light along the river that might interfere with the navigation, as conflicting with the lights now on the river. And, further, they were to have increased powers on the abolition of the Waterman's Company. For those increased duties they were to have another £1,000 a-year. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade said this was a case of urgency. Undoubtedly, it was a case of urgency with the Conservators, because if the Bill did not pass they would not get the additional £1,000 a-year. The Bill also provided that the extra £1,000 should be allotted amongst the members as they might think fit; but it appeared that nothing was to go to the Chairman, the Lord Mayor of London. He understood that this £1,000 was to be divided into moities, one of which was to go to the Deputy Chairman, and the other to the rest of the members. Thus, £3,500 a-year was to be given to the Conservators for the duties they had to perform. He had no doubt the Conservancy Board would soon suggest other duties that they might discharge with advantage to the public. No doubt, they would be quite ready to take upon themselves the duties of the Trinity House, and then there would be another sum wanted. Therefore, he agreed with the Secretary to the Board of Trade when he described the Bill as urgent. Now, with respect to the Bill being brought in as a Private Bill. It was obvious that, to use the invariable Ministerial phrase, the present state of Public Business would have made it impossible to introduce a Public Bill on the subject this Session. They had heard this from every one of Her Majesty's Ministers in connection with other matters, and they now heard it from the Secretary to the Board of Trade with reference to the present Bill. He had nothing to say against the officials of the Board of Trade, who performed their duties in an admirable manner; but he thought it was clever to suggest that this Bill should be brought forward as a Private Bill, on the petition of the Con-

    137
    servators; and that the Board of Trade were ready to meet them, and refer it to a large Committee upstairs, and that the Bill would easily pass as a Private Bill. But there would be no chance of passing it this Session if brought in as a public measure. He urged that if the Bill were allowed to go forward as a Private Bill, an injurious precedent would thereby be formed. The present measure was only the fringe of what the Board of Trade intended to do. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had given an idea of what was intended, in reply to a deputation that waited upon him, when he said the question of the re-constitution of the Conservancy Board, and also of the Trinity House, had been mooted by some gentlemen, and it had been pointed put that the Board of Trade might take a sort of increased control over the navigation of the river. He said—
    "As to that, however desirable it might be that this question should be understood and considered at some future time, and although he thought it would be necessary to reform the constituency of the Thames Conservancy Board, he did not think that the Government could hold out any hope that it would be done this Session. This was a Bill promoted by the Thames Conservancy, and the Board of Trade had undertaken its conduct in Parliament, considering it as a public duty, and especially because the Conservancy Board had no direct representation in the House of Commons. The other reforms alluded to were really outside the purview of the Bill, and the Government must remit them to a more convenient opportunity."
    This showed that the Bill was only the fringe of what the Board of Trade intended to do. That being the case, he wished to know whether the House was prepared to go into a Bill that only dealt with a fragment of the whole question, and that, too, in the form of a Private Bill? With regard to compulsory pilotage, he should offer no opinion. He would only remark that the Bill for abolishing compulsory pilotage, referred to a Select Committee in 1870, was brought in as a Public Bill, and was endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman then President of the Board of Trade, and now Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). It also bore the names of the present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and that of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). That Bill, as ho had pointed out, was brought in as a Public Bill, and referred to a Select Com-
    138
    mittee, who made a Report; but the Bill was afterwards withdrawn. The compulsory pilotage, now proposed to be dealt with, affected the port of London only, and he gave no opinion upon the subject. With respect to the powers given by the Bill to the Conservancy Board for dealing with the smoke nuisance, he pointed out that they were of that astonishing character that they might be used to the detriment of the interests of all the great works along the River Thames. All those works would be subject to inspection under this Bill; the proprietors would thereby be put to the greatest inconvenience, and, perhaps, forced to close their concerns, because they might not be able to fulfil all the requirements of the Conservancy Board; while the proposed penalties were of the most serious character. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sidney Waterlow) had ably referred to the great cement works established on the river. These works already met with the greatest competition from foreign manufacturers, and this Bill was regarded by all interested therein with the utmost alarm. Under all the circumstances ho had enumerated, it became a question whether the Bill ought to be allowed to pass. He had now to say a few words with reference to the Waterman's Company. The Secretary to the Board of Trade appeared to him to have spoken upon this point with very little knowledge of the subject, when he implied that the Waterman's Company was organized for the first time in 1859. Why, the Waterman's Company was in existence and had its rules in force hundreds of years ago, and an Act of Parliament was passed in the time of Philip and Mary—in 1555—which ordered them to do as they did now. The Act provided that no barge, craft, or wherry, or any kind of floating craft, should be navigated on the River Thames, except there was one man upon that craft who had served, at least, two years in active service upon the river. That was the regulation in force at the present day. No person could be in charge of a craft who had not been previously at work upon the River Thames for two years. Then the Secretary to the Board of Trade went on to describe the Waterman's Company as a monopoly. You had only to cry "mo-

    139
    nopoly," and everyone would run away as from the cry of "mad dog." The Waterman's Company was not a monopoly. The term could not be applied justly to 6,000 men and 2,000 apprentices. All these men were obliged to serve their apprenticeship and work for two years on the river before they could take charge of a barge. Nobody called the body of chemists or surgeons a monopoly because they had to undergo examination. The navigation of the Thames had been carried on for centuries by men who were certified as being competent to perform their duties in this respect. It was all very well to say that the men were not such as could be wished. But he maintianed that if hon. Members looked at the amount of work done, and the millions of money represented by property and ships upon the River Thames, they would see that the number of accidents was very small, and that the work was generally very well done. The Secretary to the Board of Trade stated that this portion of the Bill had been founded on the Report of the Traffic Committee, which had before them the circumstances in connection with the loss of the Princess Alice. It was stated that all the men who navigated this vessel were members of the Waterman's Company. But there was nothing in that, because every craft must be navigated by men of the Waterman's Company. He would, with the permission of the House, read a list of the ships that came up the Thames annually. In the year 1878 it appeared there were sailing vessels from foreign ports, 5,818, with the tonnage of 2,250,000 tons; sailing vessels coastwise, 30,580, tonnage 1,547,000 tons; steam vessels from foreign ports, 3,585, tonnage, 3,100,000 tons; and steam vessels coastwise, 7,497, with the tonnage of 2,103,000 tons. In all, 47,480 vessels, with the tonnage of about 9,000,000 tons. In addition to these, there were the whole of the river steamboats, barges, and other craft, which were not recognized by the Custom House. He had before him also a Report of the accidents on the River Thames, which it was most important for the House and the public to consider. The Traffic Committee said—
    "The casualties on the Thames are, as might be expected, numerous; but it must not be supposed from the terrible calamity in which the present inquiry originated that the loss of life,
    140
    or even of property, caused by these casualties is large in proportion to their number. From the last Wreck Register it appears that between June, 1877, and June, 1878, there were on the Thames above Gravesend 419 casualties reported to the Board of Trade, of which 373 were collisions.
    In all these cases, however, only six lives were lost."
    Let hon. Members contrast with that state of things the loss of life in the streets of London. The traffic in them was far more dangerous to the public than the traffic on the River Thames, which was carried on by the Watermen's Company, and which had been misdescribed by the Secretary to the Board of Trade as a monopoly. Again, according to the Report, during the three years, 1875, 1876, 1877, there were 36 vessels and 95 barges sunk between London Bridge and Yanlet Reach, the number of lives lost being only 15. Again, let hon. Members contrast with that state of things the loss of life in the streets of London. He had had a paper bearing statistics of the street accidents in London, but he could not lay his hand on it just now. He believed, however, that in 1879—and the average of the last 10 years would be fully as many—there were 144 lives lost and 2,560 people maimed in the streets of the Metropolis. From this, hon. Members would see what a large number of accidents there were in the streets compared with the number on the river, notwithstanding the enormous amount of property on it, and the number of small and large craft, including steamers and small boats. He did not think the Secretary to the Board of Trade would, by his proposal, at all provide greater security for life on the river; and he would remind the hon. Member that the Departmental Committee, appointed at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), was appointed solely to consider the question of the loss of life, the rule of the road, and for various other matters connected with rivers. The Board of Trade, in this Bill, had not introduced one of the suggestions of the Committee as to the Thames. There were one or two clauses in the Bill which he did not understand. Hon. Members who supported it said they gave to the Conservators further powers in regard to the navigation of the Thames; but he did not see what those "further powers" meant. It had been pointed out also,

    141
    that it was an advantage to have this Bill in the form of a private measure, because of its early deposit in the month of December; but the announcement of the title was not sufficient to give a correct idea of what the measure consisted. The Bill was called a measure for the abolition of compulsory piloting, for rendering the river free, and for the repeal of all Acts inconsistent therewith; but it was a misleading title, for no one would suppose from it that there were clauses dealing with the smoke nuisance and abolishing the Water-man's Company. It was a deluding title and a deluding Bill, and he hoped the House would not allow it to proceed any further.
    MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose not to make a speech, but to make an appeal to the Government. It was, no doubt, evident to the Board of Trade that many hon. Members who were going to vote against the Bill were strongly in favour of some of its leading provisions. But, surely, it ought to be a Public Bill. Depend upon it, there was no practice more dangerous or reprehensible, and against which the House ought most determinedly to set its face, than attempting to over-ride public legislation by means of Private Bills. Such a course was calculated to give rise to an immense amount of jobbery, and to cause great confusion, and, therefore, to bring discredit on the legislation of the country. It was because he was anxious that the main provisions of the Bill should become law in a proper and legitimate manner that he now rose to make an earnest appeal to the Government to withdraw it, and to deal with the question in a public measure.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am disposed to attach great importance to the opinion of my right hon. Friend, and I think it will be a saving of the time of the House if I state at once the course I propose to take on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I should like first to protest, on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) and myself, that we are not engaged in an insidious attempt upon the privileges and dignity of this House, and that we have not intentionally taken any step which is not in strict accordance with precedents in similar matters. It has been said by hon. Members that this measure, although brought in by the Conservators, is really a Board of
    142
    Trade Bill. Well, I do not want to dispute about terms. Of course, technically speaking, as I explained to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it is the Bill of the Conservators of the Thames; they will have to pay the expenses of its promotion; but, no doubt, the Bill is concurred in by the Board of Trade, and it correctly represents the opinion of the Departmental Committee appointed by the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon), my Predecessor at the Board of Trade. In that sense, I admit to the full that it is the Bill of the Board of Trade; and that, if it were to be brought in as a Public Bill, it would be brought in in its present form by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government. Our object in bringing it in as a Private Bill was perfectly open—there need be no secret about it. It was to save the time of the House and promote the progress of Public Business. It is a matter of general agreement that the House is overworked and choked with Business; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I think, said that he would be one of the greatest benefactors the House had ever known who would devise a means of saving the House some of the labour it at present has to undertake. I am afraid I cannot claim to be such a benefactor, because my first attempt in that direction appears not to have met with the general assent of the House. But the object was to save the House from unnecessary labour if we could do so in accordance with precedent, and without doing injury to any private interest. We felt it to be a necessary condition to our bringing in the Bill as a private measure, that no private interest should be in any way injured. Well, I want to know what private interest is injured by this being brought in as a private and not as a public measure? One advantage the opponents of the measure have derived from the manner in which it has been dealt with has been that it was deposited on the 21st December, and has consequently been before them since that time; whereas, if it had been brought in as a Public Bill by a Minister of the Crown, the provisions would not have been known until the measure had been introduced and laid upon the Table. As contrasted with the proceedings in connection with a Public Bill, the private interests concerned would have their complaints fully in-

    143
    vestigated before a Select Committee upstairs, if the measure were proceeded with as a Private Bill, and would have the advantage of being heard before that Committee by counsel. We knew that the watermen were poor persons, and would not be able to employ counsel; therefore we agreed—as we wished everything they had to say on their case to be duly considered—to move an Instruction to the Committee to hear them by counsel, or personally, if they preferred it. As far as our intention is concerned, therefore, we have shown ourselves anxious that no injury should be done to any private interest, and that all should be represented. The second point was this—we had to see that there was sufficient precedent for the course we had taken. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) gives up this part of the case. He admits that we are within our rights in this matter; but if we had not been right, and if the Bill had not been technically in accordance with forms and precedents, it would have been stopped by the Examiner on Standing Orders, or by you, Mr. Speaker. But, then, it is said that, as a matter of principle outside the Standing Orders, it ought not to have been brought in as a Public Bill. There have been six Bills introduced dealing with the Thames, four of which have been private and two hybrid. The former contained provisions similar to those in this Bill; and as to the latter, they contained provisions altogether extra to those of the present measure which justified their being put in a separate category. There is one provision in this Bill which has not been put in previous Privates Bill—namely, that referring to the abolition of compulsory pilotage; but, though I cannot find an exact precedent, I find that in the case of the Mersey, the Tyne, and other rivers of the country, Private Bills have been passed dealing with the same subject in the same way—that is to say, by abolishing compulsory pilotage. Therefore, we had a right to think that we had sufficient precedent in our favour to justify us in proceeding by Private Bill, if, by so doing, we could save the time of the House and promote the course of Public Business. What has the debate of this evening taught us? It has taught us, in the first place, that there is a pretty general assent on both sides the House why he had not been able to of the House as to the necessity for some
    144
    such Bill. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has given us a promise that if this Bill is brought forward as a public measure, he will not oppose it on the second reading—he has said that his objection is not to the merits of the Bill, but to the way in which it has been introduced.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me on this point. What I said was, that if the Government would bring it in as a public measure, I would not put down any Notice of opposition to block it.
    MR. CHAMBERLALN: That is a very small promise indeed. I understood that the hon. Member did not propose to offer any objection to the Bill on its merits. ["No, no!"] I thought that there was a general feeling on both sides of the House in favour of the merits of the Bill, the only exception to that general feeling being conveyed in the speech of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who thought it his duty to defend the Waterman's Company—which, it appears, has the honour to be one of the City Guilds, though it seems to posses extravagant privileges which no other Guild, at the present time, possesses. I am not surprised at the hon. Member for the City of London defending the Waterman's Company, because he has a natural tenderness for obstruction. He is a member of the Corporation of the City of London, and we have recently had evidence of their tendency in the matter of the Griffin. They have insisted on placing an obstruction on land, and it is not surprising that the hon. Member should defend interests which place obstruction in the way of a measure dealing with water. After hearing the debate I have come to the conclusion that, considering there is a general feeling in favour of legislation on this subject, whilst there is an equally general feeling against that legislation taking the form of a Private Bill, it would, probably, facilitate rather than hinder the progress of the Bill if we were to accept the suggestion made to us and were to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the measure in order to introduce it again as a Public Bill. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade explained to the House why he had not been able to adopt this course at an earlier stage. He

    145
    stated that he had been informed by the authorities he had consulted that it would be impossible. I do not know if it was so understood; but my hon. Friend did not wish to be taken as referring to the authorities of the House, but only to experienced gentlemen outside whom he had consulted in reference to this matter. But I have since had the advantage of consulting a much greater authority—namely, Mr. Speaker—and I find that those who advised my hon. Friend were mistaken, and that it is practicable to withdraw the Bill for the purpose of reintroducing it in the form of a public measure. Under the circumstances, the chief objection we had to the course having been removed, with the permission of the House, I would withdraw the Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has come to a very wise conclusion, and one which will certainly facilitate progress, and assist the House in dealing with the question. I do not at all mean to say that it might not be worth while considering whether better methods might not be adopted for shortening the procedure and saving the time of the House in the discussion of many classes of Bills; but I do say this, that the House expects to be consulted on such matters, that any change that is to be made should be made with the full concurrence of the House, and that it is a mistake to attempt to deal with a question of this sort in a Private Bill. I hope the House will assent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Bill will be withdrawn in order that the subject may be considered, as it deserves to be considered, as one of a public character. It is to be understood that no opinion has been expressed, one way or the other, on the merits of the Bill. It must not be assumed with regard to a great many of us who have objected to the manner in which the Bill has been introduced, that we assent to the principle of the measure. There is one remark I should like to make as to the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman. I must say I was surprised when the Secretary to the Board of Trade told us, in an authoritative way, that it would be impossible to take the course suggested, and change the Bill from a private to a public measure. Certainly, the inference drawn
    146
    by myself and others who sit near me when that statement was made was, that the hon. Gentleman had consulted yourself, Sir, and the other Authorities of the House—that it was in consequence of such consultation, that he told us that it was impossible to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. It now appears that it was not the intention of the hon. Member to convey that meaning; but that he only wished to give us to understand that he had consulted persons familiar with the drawing and procedure of Bills outside the House, and not the high Authorities of the House itself. That explains the difference between the statements of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman; but I must say it is to be regretted that anyone speaking from the Treasury Bench should make such a statement as that, which, although, perhaps, not intentionally, certainly misled a good number of Members. I trust the matter will now close.
    MR. NORWOODcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the decision he had arrived at, because he considered it objectionable that the matters contained in the Bill should be dealt with in a private measure. He (Mr. Norwood) wished to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to eliminate from the Bill all reference to the question of pilotage, with a view of bringing in a Bill next Session dealing, not merely with the river above Gravesend, but with the seaward approaches to the Thames. He had been a Member of the Committee which, in 1870, went very fully into this question and made a Report, from which he would give an extract. The Report said—
    "A considerable amount of evidence has been tendered to the Committee showing that the pilotage that exists on the Thames is in a very unsatisfactory state, and that it is expedient to create a distinct pilotage authority for the Port of London, representing its trade and commerce, and your Committee concur in the suggestion for such a change."
    At present they were in the hands of a private, self-elected body, in regard to the Thames, although every other river of importance in the country had its own special pilotage authority. He would strongly recommend the President of the Board of Trade to deal

    147
    with the whole question of the pilotage of the River Thames in a separate Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, after the very satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion he had placed on the Paper.
    MR. JENKINSregretted that the Bill was to be withdrawn, believing that if it had been referred to a Select Committee upstairs, much valuable time might have been saved. There was much to be complained of in regard to the navigation of the Thames, especially in so far as the safety of small craft was concerned. He trusted that the new Bill would be brought forward without delay.
    SIR HENRY TYLERhad a word to say with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) as to pilotage on the Thames. His constituency felt strongly on this matter, for they insured a large number of small vessels, and these craft met with a great many disasters on the Thames. The people on whose behalf he was speaking felt the matter all the more, inasmuch as when they proceeded against the owners of the vessels that did the damage, they were told that they could only recover from the pilots. From the pilots they found it impossible to recover anything. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring in his Bill without delay.
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday, I will move for leave to introduce another Bill on this subject.

QUESTIONS.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS— KNARESBOROUGH—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMSISIONERS.
  MR. JACKSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraphs in the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into
  148
  alleged Corrupt Practices in the Borough of Knaresbro':—
  "We find that Corrupt Practices did not extensively prevail at the Election of 1874:
  "We find that Corrupt Practices did not extensively prevail at the Election of 1880:
  "We cannot close our Report, having regard to the conclusions we have arrived at, without expressing our regret that the expense of this inquiry should, under Statute 31 and 32 Vict. cap. 123, sec. 15, fall upon the ratepayers of Knaresbro';"
  and, whether, having regard to the unanimous finding of the Commissioners, he will recommend that the cost of the Commission be defrayed by money to be provided by Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Before the Question was put on the Paper by the hon. Member, I had this subject introduced to me by my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet (Sir John Ramsden) very much in the sense of the Question of the hon. Gentleman—that is to say, indirectly conveying the regret that the inhabitants should be subjected to the burden which falls upon them. The hon. Member wishes to know whether I will recommend that the cost of the Knaresborough Commission be defrayed by money to be provided by Parliament? Well, this is not a question of mere administration, but is one which has to be determined by the law, and the cost of the Commission must, according to the law, be paid by the place concerned. There has been possibly—I do not give an opinion—some miscarriage or some error on the part of the Election Judges. At any rate, the circumstances before them led them to a conclusion which is not borne out by the facts. The case of Knaresborough appears to me to be analogous to that of suitors in Courts of Justice, who are brought there and subjected to charges and, perhaps, annoyance; but who, at the same time, are ultimately found to have committed no offence. Those are cases which we all very greatly regret; but it is not easy to discover a remedy for them.

PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION— COW-POX.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that there is no well-ascertained case of spontaneous cow-pox on record; whether it is a fact that the common practice for many years

149
has been to inoculate the calf with the virus of human small-pox, thus causing, in the words of Sir Thomas Watson, "a vast amount of mitigated small-pox; "whether it is a fact that within the last few years the mortality from small-pox at the Hague and other cities in Holland and Belgium (whence he proposes to obtain fresh lymph) has been enormously large; and, whether he will bring in a Bill to abolish Compulsory Vaccination?
MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. DODSON): I do not know what my hon. Friend would consider a well-ascertained case of spontaneous cow-pox; but cases of outbreaks of this disease among cows are specifically mentioned in the treatises on this subject, as well as in the Evidence before the Select Committee in 1871. I am informed that it is not a fact that the common practice for many years has been to inoculate the calf with the virus of human small-pox. I have no statistics as to the mortality from small-pox in Belgium; but in Holland the mortality in the epidemic of 1870–72 was very large indeed. There is nothing to show what proportion of the cases were vaccinated; and it must be borne in mind that neither in Belgium nor in Holland is vaccination compulsory. The President of the Local Government Board has no intention to bring in a Bill to abolish compulsory vaccination.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRISONERS IN KILMAINHAM GAOL.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish General Prisons Board have, under the authority conferred upon them by the Lord Lieutenant's regulations, specially exempted any person now confined in Kilmainham Prison from the operation of that article of daily routine which requires all persons under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant to go to bed at half-past eight in the evening; whether, under the rule authorising the General Prisons Board to
"Permit the Governor to modify the routine in regard to any prisoner, so far as to dispense with any practice which, in the opinion of the Governor, is clearly unnecessary in regard to that particular prisoner,"
such permission has been given and
150
exercised in the case of any prisoner with reference to the time of going to bed; and, whether, as to remain in darkness from such an early hour as half-past eight in the evening enhances the penalty of imprisonment, the Lord Lieutenant will direct that any prisoner who may desire shall be allowed to have light in his cell, and to read or write until, say, eleven or twelve o'clock?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: There is no regulation specially exempting prisoners from the operation of the rule which requires them to go to bed at half-past 8; nor has the Prisons Board given any permission to the Governor of the gaol to alter the hours. Any prisoner who wishes to have the regulation modified in his favour can apply to the Prisons Board, and the application will be duly considered. But, as a matter of fact, no such application has been made by any person arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND), MOHILL, CO. LEITRIM.
MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. FINIGAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the many evictions for non-payment of rent recently carried out and in course of being carried out in the Mohill Union, in the county of Leitrim; and, whether he will cause an inquiry respecting these evictions to be instituted, with a view of ascertaining the amount of rent as compared with the Poor Law valuation?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I understand there have been 12 evictions carried out in this district since the 1st of February, all for non-payment of rent. In every case the evicted tenants have been readmitted as caretakers. I have no information as to the number of evictions pending. As regards an inquiry respecting the amount of rent, as compared with Poor Law valuation, that is a matter over which I have no jurisdiction.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is making himself acquainted with the evictions now proceeding in Ireland, and with the circumstances attending each?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am glad to be able to state that I am watching the evictions with great care.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Having heard that, I beg to give Notice I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman the following Questions on Thursday:—Whether he is aware that during the service of some processes on Tuesday, 22nd instant, on the property of Lord Oranmore and Browne, near Claremorris, a man named O'Brady, who was serving the processes, came to the house of a man named Pat Mullen, and when he arrived at Pat Mullen's house he found the man dead, and laid out in the usual way on the table, and whether, upon seeing this, he placed the process on the dead body of Patrick Mullen? I will also ask him, on the same day, Whether, during the service of ejectments on the Grattan-Bellew property, at Mount Bellew, an old man, who was so alarmed by the presence of the police and the Service of the processes, died suddenly on the occasion?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member knows that I could not get the information before Friday, and perhaps he will put the Questions on Monday.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no objection to put them on Monday, and may put a few more on the Paper tonight with regard to evictions in other parts of the country.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—PROPORTION OF RENTS TO VALUATIONS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state the proportion which the rent bore to the Government valuation in cases where tenants had been evicted?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have no official means of ascertaining it.

STATE OF IRELAND— LAND LEAGUE MEETINGS—GOVERNMENT REPORTERS.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the powers of arrest and imprisonment for eighteen mouths given under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, the Government will cease sending policemen to meetings to take longhand notes of a speaker's words, in view of the liability
152
to error of untrained men in accurately recording what has been said, and of the painful consequences which may arise to speakers owing to the longhand note-takers' errors or incompetency?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The only answer I have to give is that the Government have no intention of altering the present arrangements, under which they are kept informed of the proceedings at public meetings of the Land League.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is usual for the Government to send note-takers to public meetings in England; and, if not, whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing the practice of the Irish Executive, in the case of public meetings in Ireland?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If it were necessary, in the interests of law and order, to send note-takers to public meetings in England, it would be done, as it is in the case of Ireland.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND) —SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, since, in the opinion of the Education Department, eighty cubical feet and eight square feet of area are admittedly insufficient school accommodation for each child in average attendance, their Lordships will make provision in the new Code that the measurement of denominational schools, as well as of board schools, shall be such as will secure to the school children in both cases alike a sufficient amount of space for their health, and for their efficient instruction?
MR. MUNDELLA: It is the constant aim of the Education Department to secure more than the minimum space laid down in the Code, which is correctly stated in the Question of my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend will compare the average attendance throughout England and Wales with the accommodation calculated at eight square feet, he will find that the accommodation is generally in excess even of 10 square feet. We are not prepared at once to insist upon the enlargement of the minimum. We hope, however, gradually

153
to bring about a general increased average both of attendance and of accommodation.

INLAND REVENUE—BEER LICENCES (IRELAND).
MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is the fact that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue require beer retailers in Ireland, who merely desire to sell beer by retail for consumption off the premises, to take out a beer dealer's licence at an additional Duty of £3 6s. l¾d.; and, if so, is he aware that the same requirement is not enforced upon similar traders in England, although the Statute empowering the issue of such licences applies to England as well as to Ireland; if he would inform the House if the charge for such retail beer licences for England is now £1 5s., and for Ireland £4 11 s.; 1¾d.;and, if so, is it his intention to rectify this anomaly in any way; and, has it been brought under his consideration that by the Inland Revenue Commissioners' order of this present month, traders proposing to become beer and wine retailers in Ireland for consumption off the premises at the rate of Licence Duty imposed by the Inland Revenue Act of last Session, are also required to pay a beer dealer's licence, thereby more than doubling the Licence Duty; and whether a similar order is in force for England?
MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that it is quite true, as stated in the Question, that there is a distinction in the amount paid by beer dealers for a licence in Ireland and that paid by boor dealers in England; but the distinction had not grown out of the recent legislalation, and has no connection whatever, as the hon. Member is well aware, with the Act of last Session. It is the fact that some of the Acts that are passed for England do not apply to Ireland, and that Justices in Ireland have not the same powers as regards licences for sale off the premises as Justices in England have. The Act of last year makes no change in the qualification on the subject. If it were deemed desirable to re-open the question of magisterial licences, there would be no objection taken by the Irish Revenue Department to allowing magistrates in Ireland the
154
same power as regards beer licences, which would have the effect of meeting all the inequalities which the hon. Gentleman complained of. It would be better, however, to put the Question to the head of the Irish Government, and on the part of the Revenue Department there will be no objection.

HALL-MARKING—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, 1879.
MR. C. M'LARENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on Hall-marking, 1879, and Mr. Hankey's Draft Report, which was supported by three Members of the present Government; and, whether the Government will deal with the question of Hall-marking in the present Session of Parliament?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole subject has been carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and a Bill is being drafted; but, considering the present block of Public Business, there is little hope of its introduction this Session.

THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S DEPARTMENT —FIRES IN THEATRES.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state that the safety of the public is secured in theatres and other places of public entertainment in case of fire; and, if not, if he can give any assurance that he will give the question his immediate attention?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have communicated with the Lord Chamberlain on this subject, and he wishes it to be stated that, as far as the theatres licenced by him are concerned, he has caused the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which considered the subject in 1877 to be embodied, as far as possible, in the Regulations issued by him for the guidance of managers. The theatres are inspected from time to time, and managers held by their licences personally responsible for the safety of the public With regard to new theatres, the responsibility of framing new Regulations for adequate security from fires is imposed, by the Metropolitan Buildings Act of 1878, on the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose printed Regulations on the subject are, I presume,

155
open to the inspection of the hon. Member. I have addressed myself to the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel Hogg), and he has assured me that in all new theatres very stringent measures are taken for the prevention of fire and for the escape of persons in the event of fire.
MR. MACFARLANEasked, what precautions were taken in the case of music halls?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not acquainted with the Regulations of the Middlesex Magistrates in that matter.

LAW AND POLICE—RIOT AT BASINGSTOKE.
MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the report in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of March 28th, of a riot which took place on Sunday at Basingstoke; and, whether he will take any steps to prevent the threatened recurrence of a similar scene on Sunday next?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The circumstances of this scandalous transaction have been drawn to my notice, and I am awaiting a further report on the matter. Everything that I can do will be done to prevent the recurrence of a similar scene next Sunday.

MERCANTILE MARINE—BRISTOL CHANNEL PILOTS.
SIR PHILIP MILESasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps have been taken to examine into grievances of the Bristol Channel pilots, as stated in a Memorial forwarded by them in December 1880 to the Board of Trade?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In their Memorial, the pilots complained of injuries caused by unfair selection, and asked that the pilotage authority should be transferred to the Trinity House. Their Memorial was referred to the pilotage authorities, who replied that remedies already existed for cases of unfair selection. The change which the pilots desire can only be effected by a Provisional Order or an Act of Parliament. No application for a Provisional Order has been made, and we are not in a position to initiate legislation on this subject.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS) —RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If complete religious toleration, as in other parts of the Empire, will be secured under the terms of pacification in the Transvaal?
MR. GRANT DUFF: I may, perhaps, be allowed to answer that Question, and to say that the intention of the Commission which is to be appointed will be drawn to this important subject.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—THE 87TH AND 88TH REGIMENTS.
MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If, in view of the separation decided on between the 87th and 88th Regiments, it is proposed to promote any more officers from one of these regiments to the other?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I have to say that I cannot undertake at this moment to interfere with the promotion in the 87th and 88th Regiments; but that the question of promotions in Battalions, which will in July be combined in territorial regiments, differently from their combinations in Brigades, is receiving very careful consideration.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.
SIR JOHN HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, as follows:—If he can give the House any information as to the report of the surrender of Potchefstroom during the armistice; and if the attack reported to have been made by the Boers during the continuance of the armistice was not contrary to the usages of civilized warfare; and whether the Boer leaders who led the attack will be exempt from the amnesty?
MR. CHILDERS: I have to state that we have received the following telegram from Sir Evelyn Wood, dated noon yesterday:—
"March March 28.—Fort Amiel, 12 noon.—Winsloe surrendered Potchefstroom on the 21st, before my mule waggons, which left Mount Prospect the 7th, had traversed the distance—200 miles. Terms: All honours of war, retaining private weapons and property; guns and rifles surrendered, but ammunition for both to be handed to

157
Brand for custody during war, after which to be returned to us. Garrison not to serve during the hostilities at present existing. Garrison now marching viâ Kronstadt on Natal."
Immediately on its receipt, I conferred with Lord Kimberley; but we are not yet in possession of sufficient information to guide Her Majesty's Government as to the reply to be sent to Sir Evelyn Wood. I may remind the right hon. and gallant Baronet that a question may arise whether the news of the prolongation of the armistice could have reached Potchefstroom before the 21st instant. But on this and other points I express at present no opinion.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the inquiry he proposes to make in order to ascertain whether the news of the prolongation of the armistice can have reached Potchefstroom before the 21st, he would take into account the fact that that news might have arrived quicker if sent through the Orange Free State than by the longer route through the Transvaal?
MR. CHILDERS: I have already been consulting those who are acquainted with the locality, with a view of arriving at some understanding on the specific point. I cannot say more at present.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked, If the County of Salop had been declared to be a county free from foot-and-mouth disease?
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that after the 31st instant the county of Salop would be entirely free from any restrictions. With respect to the general success of the Orders in Council, he was glad to be able to report that last week the number of outbreaks was reduced to 34. In the first week of the year the outbreaks were 278, and since then they had been steadily declining. In the week ending 5th March the number was 70, in the week ending the 12th it was 68, in the week ending the 19th it was 35, and in the week ending the 26th it was 34.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTLELOTasked, What other counties were to be exempted?
MR. MUNDELLAhoped the Question would be deferred until Thursday. They
158
were considering them county by county, and, having got through half the counties, they hoped to complete them by Thursday.

ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL,
MR. WARTONasked the right hon. Member for Montrose to say after what hour the Entail (Scotland) Bill would be brought on?
MR. BAXTERreplied, that no one opposed the Bill except the hon. and learned Member for Bridport; and as the hon. and learned Gentleman, not very courteously, had declined to listen to a private explanation of the nature of the Bill, and of the reasons why noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen on both sides had asked him to introduce the Bill, he had merely to state that he should bring on the measure whenever he could.
MR. WARTON: I must say, Sir—["Order!"]—in Parliamentary language, that what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman is not correct.

MOTIONS.
  COINAGE (DECIMAL SYSTEM).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ASHTON DILKErose to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of a Decimal System of Coinage, Weights, and Measures ought not to be longer delayed."
    The hon. Member said, that in this country social questions were almost always postponed to political questions, as the latter involved few private interests, but stimulated Party spirit. The Motion he was proposing was essentially not a Party one, because it had been supported on many occasions by Members both of the Conservative and Liberal Parties. He noticed the President of the Board of Trade in his place, and he believed the subject of the Resolution would get the same reception as it did in 1863 from Lord Palmerston's Government, when they suffered defeat on this particular question. He hoped that defeat would be a good omen for the present Motion. It was quite intelligible that social questions should be sacrificed for political questions; but he thought it would be a rather serious blot in their representative institutions if the principle was carried too far,

    159
    This question was first raised in the House of Commons in 1824; afterwards a Commission of Inquiry was appointed, in which Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and afterwards Lord Monteagle, took part. That showed that the Government of those days were less occupied with political matters than they were now, and more disposed to devote themselves to the interests of the commercial classes of the country, who had always supported and petitioned in favour of this measure. In 1843, another Commission, composed of scientific men, reported strongly in favour of this particular scheme. In 1853, a Committee of the House of Commons, which confined its inquiries to decimal coinage, reported in favour of that system. In November, 1854, a great amount of evidence, collected by that Committee, was published; but there was no Report. In the years 1862–3–4 there was great activity in relation to the question, and Mr. Ewart's Committee was appointed in 1862, and collected an immense mass of evidence, which had been the basis of all subsequent investigations. In 1863, Mr. Ewart brought in a Bill which, despite the opposition of Lord Palmerston's Government, was carried on its second reading by a large majority. That led to the Act of 1864, which made the metric system permissive in the country. No doubt, the argument against his Resolution would be that the system, being permissive in England, if it was advantageous would have been taken up. But there was a curious piece of evidence in the Report of the Commission on that point. An over-zealous Inspector of Weights and Measures having summoned a tradesman for having in his possession weights and measures of the metric system, the tradesman produced the Act of Parliament, and pleaded that he was permitted to use them. The magistrates disagreed, and the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom it was referred, was that though a man might lawfully use the weights and measures at the metric system, he might not have them in his house. The House would, therefore, see that the permission was not of much use. In 1871, a Bill to make the system compulsory was rejected by a majority of 5. No doubt, the reason of the great outburst of activity on the subject in 1861 was due to the Exhibi-
    160
    tions which were held; and after the Paris Exhibition of 1855 an Association was formed to encourage the decimal system throughout the world generally. The Commission, which had reported on this subject, had reported practically in favour of the system he proposed, and it was a great comfort to its advocates to think that the coinage of this country might be easily changed into the decimal system with so little inconvenience. The pound sterling would be retained as the unit, the florin would be retained, and the farthing, which was the 960th of a pound, would be the 1,000th instead. It would be admitted that that was a very slight alteration. Some said that if this system were carried out it would lead to the abolition of the half-crown; but he did not see that it should do so. The half-crown was a handsome and useful coin, and he was quite in favour of its retention. The sovereign would be 1,000 mils, the shilling 50, the sixpence 25, and the half-crown 125. The only alteration that would be required would be a slight alteration in the stamping of the coins, and that the number of mils should be indicated on one side of the coin. With regard to the copper coinage there would be more difficulty. What he maintained was that, with the retention of the pound sterling as the unit, the cost of the change in our copper coinage was not such as ought to deter us from making such a beneficial alteration as the introduction of a decimal system of coinage. The alteration in the case of the penny would be very simple. The penny would become the 250th part of a pound instead of the 240th part, as at present. He admitted that the change might cause a certain inconvenience in some of the small transactions of life; but it would be noticed that, on the whole, the balance would not be against the poorer classes. There would be a loss of 4 per cent; but it would fall rather on the dealer than on the consumer. To show that he was disinterested in bringing the matter forward, he might mention that in his particular business the alteration would be a distinct, though not a very large, loss to himself. He proposed to retain the sovereign and the whole of the silver coinage, and to make only a small alteration in the copper coinage. The only new coin he proposed to have was one

    161
    of nickel of the value of 2½d., or 10 to a florin. He thought the decimal coinage had now arrived at a distinct, crystallized stage. The whole of the evidence collected on this subject was distinctly in favour of one course, and that course he proposed to adopt if the House approved of his Motion. The proposal was that a Bill should be introduced dealing with the coinage next Session. With regard to the system of weights and measures, there was a great diversity of opinion. The more radical course was the proposed adoption of the metric system pure and simple, as it existed nearly over the whole of Europe. This would immensely facilitate commercial transactions with every country in Europe. There was also the medium course, which he should be willing to adopt if it should be proved that the bulk of the commercial opinion of England was in favour of it, and which was recommended by the Commission of 1841–2. It proposed the retention of the yard, but the introduction of a measure of 1,000 yards in place of the present inconvenient mile, which was 1,760 yards. It also proposed to do away with the 60 or more measures of corn in use in different parts of the country at the present moment, and to introduce the cental, the measure now in use in Liverpool and other ports. It also proposed, instead of 5½ yards to a pole of ground, to adopt the measure already used by English land surveyors, the chain being divided into links. That system was already a decimal one, and might be conveniently extended, and made the only legal system. His personal preference was decidedly in favour of the general adoption of the metric system, because it would bring us into community with almost the whole of the European countries. It was a curious fact that our trade with countries which used the metric system increased so much more rapidly than with those which did not. A great saving of labour would be effected by the adoption of that system, and the Decimal Association had elicited, by means of a Circular to schoolmasters, the important fact that whereas it took an average of two years and ten months to teach a child the present English system of coinage and weights and measures, it would only take a few days over nine months to teach the metric system. It might be said that the common people would
    162
    have a difficulty in learning that system; but it must be remembered that education had made, and was still making, rapid advances in this country. That system had been introduced into almost every country in Europe, and also into the South American Republics, where it could not be said that a very high average of education and general intelligence existed. He had read a good deal of commercial correspondence on the question, and he only found one of his correspondents unfavourable to the adoption of his proposal. In that single instance the objection was that the decimal system was already largely in use in commercial houses, the practice being to regard a shilling as ·05 and a penny as ·004 of a pound. So that the only objection to his plan was that it was already largely in use in an irregular manner. Mr. Locke, the eminent English engineer, when he was constructing railways in France, used the decimal system both in paying the workmen, and in respect to the finer and more delicate parts of machinery; and the testimony which he bore on the subject was, that it took English workmen in France only from a fortnight to a month to master the decimal and metric system. Mr. Locke also found the decimal system so convenient, that when he returned to England and commenced making railways hero he used that system first, and converted his calculations back into the English standards afterwards. Our scientific men had not used anything but the metrical system for the last 40 years; and the great accuracy now acquired in mechanical work, such as the casting of guns and the like, was only to be obtained by the use of the decimal system. Sir William Armstrong, B. Whitworth, and Sir Thomas Fairbairn—almost the greatest possible authorities on a subject of that sort—might be cited in favour of that system. Again, one of the most strenuous upholders of the decimal system, either as to value or as to weights, was the late Sir Rowland Hill, the author of the penny post reform. The actual saving of clerical labour which would attend the change would be very considerable. He thought that clerks in England were badly paid, and he should be sorry to do anything which would injure them. But though the saving of labour effected by the introduction of

    163
    machinery had been very great, employers had, nevertheless, generally found their labour bills much increased. In fact, the moment they gave facilities for increased production, and made things simpler and clearer, although they might cause some little temporary suffering and inconvenience, yet they inevitably increased the demand enormously in a very short period. By the adoption of the decimal system, calculations would be rendered vastly simpler and easier, and the consequent saving of time that would thereby be effected would not only be one-third or one-half, as some authorities estimated, but far larger. Several important bodies of commercial men, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, had considered the question, and had passed resolutions in favour of the adoption of the decimal system; even Moshesh, the son of the famous Basuto Chief of that name, had, at a meeting of Basutos, thanked the Government for introducing a uniform scale of weights and measures as the greatest boon they could give them. As far as the difficulty of introducing the system into this country was concerned, he could only say that the difficulty was one which had been grappled with successfully in other countries. It had been adopted, for instance, in France, Holland, and Portugal; and the case of Holland was very similar to this country. The Dutch, while adopting the system, had retained Dutch words as the names of the divisions in their coinage, which might be very well done in this country. The question was, in his view, one of great importance to the commercial and agricultural classes; and it was clear that in other countries in which it had been adopted the classes in question had found great convenience from the use of the system. In fact, the evidence he had adduced showed that this view was held, and that the commercial classes, at any rate, wished the settlement of the question not to be delayed any longer than was absolutely necessary by reason of the pressure of other Business more important to the nation. The longer it was delayed the more difficult the settlement must be. Transactions were becoming more and more complicated, and
    164
    there would be greater reluctance to deal with the matter. There was probably no civilized country in the world. which had such a puzzling system of weights and measures as we had in England; and, as far as agricultural trades were concerned, our present system was simply a disgrace. We had made improvements lately; but they had not yet resulted in anything very great, and we were not much further advanced than before. We had even been further on the road than we were now. When the Education Code was first introduced by a Liberal Government, the metric system was taught in our schools; but the first thing the Conservatives did when they came into power was to knock that on the head. We were as yet very far from being in the position in which we ought to be if we were to keep our place among the nations. One great reason for the commercial classes approving the proposal was that it was a measure of Free Trade, and one which would afford much greater facilities for commerce than existed under the present system. The metrical system was in use by more than one-third of the whole population in the world; and a small matter like this might very well turn a considerable amount of commerce from our shores, owing to the difficulty which foreigners had of understanding our complicated and difficult system of weights and measures. There would, no doubt, be some trouble in introducing a new system in this country; but it would not be anything like so great as was apprehended. The trouble he regarded as a mere bugbear. They had, no doubt, many good things which foreign nations had not. They had Free Trade, and their vast supply of coal, and, besides, they had great national energy; but they had not the good thing of which he spoke, and of which foreign nations were possessed. He admitted that the passing of an Act establishing the metric system would do harm at first to the Government who introduced it; but in the end that Government would be strengthened by passing such a measure. Every interest that was disturbed, and everyone who was put to a little trouble, however he might be benefited in the end, would grumble and growl; but, even though they might displease a few people, it would be well to risk a temporary unpopularity. It would not be the least or meanest achieve-

    165
    ment of a Liberal Government to deal with a question which had been standing over so long against the distinctly-expressed wish of every commercial body of importance in the country; and it was to be hoped they would give it that attention which its gravity and importance demanded.
    MR. DILLWYNseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of a Decimal System of Coinage, Weights, and Measures ought not to be longer delayed."—(Mr. Ashton Dilke.)
    MR. STEVENSONthought they had had a pleasant illustration of the state of matters in that House in contrast to the period of "urgency" which had so lately existed, for they now appeared to be at liberty to spend an agreeable evening in discussing a proposal which he ventured to submit was by no means an urgent one. One would think, from the term of the Motion, that there was a movement in favour of change; but there was less demand than formerly for the introduction of the decimal coinage system, and he expected the movement would remain in a state of comparative quiescence for a long time to come. The House had in past times humoured Members possessing this hobby, and on one or two occasions majorities had been voted in favour of propositions by these Members, on the understanding that on the Bills being read a second time they should go no further. In the year 1853, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. J. B. Smith asked him, as a new copper coinage was about to be issued, whether he would take that opportunity of introducing the decimal system. Undoubtedly, if that system was ever to be adopted that was the proper time for it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied "that he had no intention of making any change. A fresh supply of coin was necessary for this country and the Colonies. We had to consider the Colonies, who had adopted the same system as ourselves; and any interference with it was a matter of great importance and delicacy"—altering the value of those particular coins which were the basis of the whole idea of value to the mass of the population—"and so serious a change ought not to be undertaken on
    166
    abstract opinions without ascertaining that the ground under our feet was secure." These words were as true now as then. We had to consider not only learned men and merchants, but also costermongers and their customers; and the latter had not memoralized the Government to say that they were defrauded and could not spend their money to the best advantage with our present system. A consideration of what was best for the great masses of the people would lead to the conclusion that we had better make no change. When a point was made of the correspondence between French coins and weights, it should be remembered that in the new bronze coinage, ld. weighed one-third of an ounce; ½d. one-fifth of an ounce, and ¼d. one-tenth of an ounce; so that 3d. made an ounce weight, and that the ½d. was an inch in diameter. In the debate of 1855, Sir William Brown ardently advocated the decimal coinage; but Mr. J. B. Smith deprecated the introduction of the decimal system, lost the unpopularity of the change should interfere with the metric system, of which he was as ardent an advocate. To establish a system of decimal coinage would simply be to introduce confusion, because it would interfere with that which was the standard of value in the minds of the people. The Government, however, consented to an Inquiry by a Royal Commission, who reported in 1859, and who fully exhausted the subject. The Commission, he might add, knocked the system on the head, and Lord Overstone had propounded a set of questions on the subject, which had never been answered. In a paragraph in the Report, too, it was stated that, as regarded comparative convenience for the reckonings of shops and markets, the superiority rested with the present system. The florin was introduced as a step to decimal coinage, but it had never taken its place as a unit of value in this country. It was one of the most stupid coins that had ever come from the Mint, which had stopped the coining of half-crowns—a most useful coin—many years ago, but only soon to coin them again. But it was argued that other countries had adopted the decimal system. That, no doubt, was so; but they had not destroyed their old unity of value—the Spanish dollar in America, and the sou in France—and the metric

    167
    system of weights and measures could not in France by law be forced into the minds of the people. He might refer to a French cookery book, published in 1870, to corroborate that statement. There he found receipts in which all the old terms of weight and measurement—pounds, inches, ounces—were employed, which showed that the language of the kitchen did not agree with that of the law, which had introduced a new language by which all the old ideas were disturbed. The greater simplicity of a decimal coinage for calculation was asserted; but if they wished to add to 2s. 6d. the sum of 1s. 3d., they saw at once that the amount was 3s. 9d.; but expressed in decimal notation, it would be this—to 1 florin 2 cents and 5 mils (the value of 2s. 6d.) add 6 cents and 2½ mils (the value of 1s. 3d.), and you get the sum of 1 florin 8 cents and 7½, or, rather, 7·5 mils, as the equivalent for 3s. 9d. The argument of simplicity was in favour of the old notation. The penny and the mil were the unity for all statistics of cost on railways, such as the cost of fuel per train mile; and for this purpose decimals of a penny were voluntarily used. In like manner the inch, divided into 100 parts, was used at Woolwich. Parliament had already done all that was reasonable in the way of the metric system. They had rendered the language of it legal in contracts, and the Weights and Measures Act of 1878 had authorized the use of metric weights for scientific purposes and for manufacture, but not for trade. The Act also authorized the Board of Trade to sanction decimal multiples and divisions of existing standards. The Act also decimalized the troy ounce for gold and silver sales, abolishing penny weights and troy pounds. This useful Act has been copied in the Colonies. They were all familiar with the score and the dozen; but there was no similar word in any language he knew for a group of ten; and human nature did not work by decimals. Eggs, oysters, and bottles of wine were all sold by the dozen even in France; indeed, the French wine trade, partly, no doubt, in deference to the demands of English and American consumers, had reverted to making their cases hold 60 bottles instead of 50. Besides, our coinage fitted in with our existing system of weights and measures, and that was an
    168
    important and practical consideration. It was observable, too, that for all the quotations of the stock and share market vulgar fractions were preferred to decimal, on account of the convenience of the natural use of halves, quarters, eighths, and sixteenths. That, he believed, was the experience of the American markets, in common with our own, as he proved by extracts from a New York price list. Again, as long as we had the bulk of the carrying trade of the world, the British ton and the pound sterling would prevail. Such were the reasons—all of them connected with business and remote from theory—which induced him to vote against the Motion.
    MR. ANDERSONbelieved they were all perfectly agreed that there was very great difficulty in making this change; but he thought the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had considerably exaggerated those difficulties. For instance, when he talked about human nature working in dozens, he must say that was a proposition that hardly commended itself to his mind. He did not find, for example, that they were given 12 fingers or 12 toes. But they had 10 fingers and 10 toes, and that might be considered as a natural suggestion in favour of the decimal system. But he would not pursue that point. Even taking the difficulties, the hon. Member was not quite accurate in all his particulars when speaking of shillings being used in New York; because, wherever they went in America, the dollar and the cent were the current mercantile coins. Then the hon. Member said they must look to the Colonies; but in Canada, their premier Colony, they had the decimal system of coinage. The hon. Member (Mr. Dilke) had not said a great deal about money of account, and it appeared to him the money of account should be decimal rather than the coinage. From the Resolution placed upon the Paper it was impossible to gather what scheme was proposed, and it was for that reason he put down his Amendment that it was a fit subject to go to a Committee. The scheme suggested by the hon. Member was that a pound should be the unit; but it appeared to him that was much too large a unit. In France and Italy the unit was a franc, which was only the twenty-fifth part of a pound, and it would be a mistake to make the unit a

    169
    pound. In America the unit was the dollar; and if they did not adopt an international unit, he thought the natural unit they should adopt would be the franc, as in Italy and France. If they were, however, to stick to their own coinage, in his opinion, a florin ought to be the unit, and that would be a unit that it would be easy to divide into hundredth parts. Then, he could not see the extreme difficulty that the hon. Member (Mr. Stevenson) saw in necessarily abolishing the penny. They had already changed the actual value of the penny, because they knew there was not a pennyworth of bronze in it; and it was, therefore, easy to change the nominal to four mils instead of five mils, and then they would not be abolishing the penny at all. He thought there was no doubt, as regards educational and mercantile matters, that the money of account ought to be decimal. It would be an enormous saving both in the cost and trouble of teaching children, and in the cost of mercantile transactions, if we adopted money of account which was decimal. But there was a very much greater difference when they came to weights and measures, because there was much greater confusion, and the change would certainly produce a very considerable amount of confusion in the country. He did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Dilke) had suggested any mode that was at all feasible by which they could take and decimalize their present weights and measures. They dared not hope to do it with their present weights and measures; and, consequently, there would be nothing for it but to make a complete change and adopt the metric system. No doubt, there would be a great gain in adopting a system that in the course of time would be international; and if it could be done with any moderate amount of present inconvenience to themselves they ought to do it. Possibly by remitting it to a Select Committee to consider, something might come out of it. It was now a long time since there was a Committee, none since 1862, when a great deal of valuable information was brought forward. The world was older now, and the decimal system had become more general. Therefore, it was now time that another Committee of the House should take evidence upon it; and, with that view, he should move—
    170
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any basis can be found for a decimal system that would not so seriously disturb existing conditions as to make it practically inexpedient to change."
    MR. BOORDseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any basis can be found for a decimal system that would not so seriously disturb existing conditions as to make it practically inexpedient to change,"—
    (Mr. Anderson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that he was amused at the statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Dilke), that every Commission and Committee which had been appointed had reported in favour of a decimal coinage. He was one of a Royal Commission appointed in 1857, in which his Colleagues were Lord Monteagle and Lord Overstone, which collected a vast amount of evidence and expended great labour in the investigation of the subject; and finally, after three years' work, in 1859 issued a Report which was distinctly adverse to the introduction of a decimal system as a practical measure. He thought the educational argument of the hon. Member almost ludicrous, as he was at a loss to see how so simple a system could afford any valuable instruction whatever. Like logarithms, the decimal system was even now applied in computations whore scientific accuracy was needed—It was so employed in Insurance Offices and in the Bank of England. He did not think decimal measurements would be received by the agricultural community with much favour. Besides, a cadastral survey of the whole country was on the eve of completion, with the areas given by the acre, rood, and pole; and it would be a cruel thing for all that enormous labour to be thrown away. Nor was the system at all applicable to division. Commodities were naturally divided by the hand into halves, quarters, and eighths; but division into tenths and hundredths was virtually impossible. There was no unanimity whatever as to details among the authorities who re-

    171
    commended the decimal system; and it ought not to be forgotten that, however willing merchants and actuaries might be to adopt it, it would be a very difficult matter indeed to force it upon the costermongers and apple-women of St. Giles's or the New Cut. The poor people, indeed, who received payments reckoned, by pennies would be suffering by the decimalization of the coinage to an extent something like 4 per cent—a loss which only the most urgent reasons could justify Parliament in inflicting upon them. Moreover, convenience was not altogether on the side of the decimal system. There was no doubt that, for the purposes of division, our own system was infinitely more convenient and more practical. Different units wore adopted for different articles; and he thought it would be much better, instead of imposing on the community an artificial system, to leave trade and finance to find the unit most convenient to them.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that although his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne had not found many supporters in the House, yet he might be congratulated on having raised a very interesting and instructive debate—not so exciting as some which had hitherto occupied their attention, but which had a very great importance of its own. The hon. Member had justly claimed credit for disinterestedness, since those who were interested in newspaper enterprize would be likely to suffer pecuniarily if anything occurred to depreciate the value of the penny, unless it were met by increasing the price of their advertisements. He could not pretend to the disinterestedness which animated the hon. Member for Newcastle, who said they (the Government) would have statues raised to their memory if they initiated this reform. He (Mr. Chamberlain) preferred much more that the constituencies should give them their votes now, than that they should raise statues a century hence. He complained that the Resolution said too much, because it jumbled together into one Resolution two questions which ought to be separately treated. The question of decimalization of the coinage was not necessarily connected with the decimalization of weights and measures; and one of these alone would cause such a disturbance in the habits of the people, that the hon. Member might have been well satisfied with ask-
    172
    ing the House to swallow one morsel first. He complained also because the Resolution said too little. It did not tell them whether this great change was to be enforced compulsorily or was to be permissive. Now, that was a point on which they ought to have had some information before they were called upon to vote upon this question. The Committee of 1862 and the Commission of 1869 had both reported in favour of the permissive decimal system. If the measure was to be permissive, and if there were to be two systems running side by side, there would be great expense, great liability to fraud, and great confusion; and he very much doubted whether the new system could be successfully introduced. If they violently compelled the people to adopt this system before they were educated up to it, Parliament would be doing a very unpopular thing, and it would be easier to do away with the House of Lords, and to disestablish the Church of England, than to introduce the decimal system under such circumstances. His hon. Friend did not define the particular system which he wished the House to adopt. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not see his way to absolutely pledging the Government and the House of Commons to an immediate and compulsory adoption of this great change without knowing what that change was definitely to be, and by what methods it was to be carried into practice. With regard to the decimalization of weights and measures, he was at a loss to discover what was the exact proposal of the hon. Member. He thought that the hon. Member said that he himself preferred the metric system, but that he would be willing to adopt certain alternatives, including the cental with a one pound unit. But the cental was already a legal weight in this country, having been adopted chiefly for the regulation of the enormous corn transactions of the Liverpool merchants; but had not superseded the old bushel throughout the country. Such a system would not in the slightest degree facilitate our international transactions. As a matter of fact, the weight of evidence was in favour of the introduction of the metric system if the change could be made without great difficulty; but there was by no means unanimity with regard to it. He had just heard that in the manufactory of Sir Joseph Whitworth, who himself was a great advocate

    173
    of the decimal system, it had been found necessary to give up that system, and that the workmen preferred to work on the scale of eighths to a scale of tenths. The late Master of the Mint, Sir John Herschel, believed that the French system would not be found convenient in this country. Professor Do Morgan said that the inconvenience of introducing the new system at home would, in his opinion, far more than counter-balance any advantage which might result from its adoption in our foreign transactions. Sir George Airey also said that the advantages of the decimal scheme were not worth mention in comparison with the difficulties with which it was surrounded. Now, he was not himself prepared to endorse those statements to the full, though they came from very high authorities. Indeed, his own experience of the two systems, carried on side by side, led him to believe that there would be considerable saving of time and trouble from the adoption of the scheme proposed by his hon. Friend, if once established. Hon. Members must not, however, shut their eyes to the fact that the inconvenience would at first be so enormous as to amount to nothing short of a revolution. In the first place, there was the cost of the change. In 1869, evidence was given to the effect that no fewer than 30,000,000 separate weights and measures existed in the country. That number had, no doubt, since been doubled. The cost of replacing all these weights and measures and of providing new standards universally throughout the country would probably be between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. That was, however, a mere fraction of the total expense. No one who had not seen the great works at Middlesborough and other ironworks, could have any idea of the enormous amount of capital which was embarked in implements, all of which would have to be altered. A new stock would have, in some way or other, to be substituted for the old, and a vast variety of articles, such as screws, hinges, bar iron, and rod iron, would have to be replaced, with the result of great inconvenience, suffering, and loss. They had had some experience, he might add, of the difficulties which stood in the way of change. They attempted some time ago to introduce the Imperial bushel; but it had in a great number of cases been rejected
    174
    by the population, who went on measuring by their own bushel. He did not, in bringing those difficulties under the notice of the House, wish to over-estimate them, or to contend that they might not be overcome; but in considering the question they must count the cost, and there ought to be the most careful inquiry, and a really popular demand outside the House, before such a change was attempted. The experience of foreign countries was, he might add, not so much in favour of his hon. Friend's proposal as he seemed to suppose. Looking at the Report, the other day, of the Commission of 1857, he found certainly a Return from France stating that the change to the new system had been made there without the slightest difficulty; but there was another Return from the present Foreign Minister of France, M. de St. Hilaire, in which he spoke of the change as being most unpopular, and that at the time of its introduction the greatest difficulty was experienced in many districts in bringing the new system into use. Not only in France, too, but in the United States and in Holland, the use of the old money and the old weights had continued down to the present time. That was especially the case in Holland, where the old system was cumbrous to a degree of which they had no experience in this country. He would also point out that foreign nations derived advantages from assimilating their weights and measures to those of contiguous countries, with which they carried on a large commercial intercourse; but that it did not follow that we should find ourselves compensated for making the change in anything like an equal degree. He now came to the proposal to introduce a decimal system of coinage. Many of the considerations which he had already brought before the House also applied to this portion of the subject. But he chiefly wanted to know what system his hon. Friend proposed that the House should adopt. Did he advocate the pound and mil system? If he did, the analogies to be drawn from foreign countries were against him, for abroad a unit of low denomination was always adopted as the unit of the decimal system. In this proposition of the hon. Gentleman, however, he was not altogether disinterested, as he, no doubt unintentionally, made himself the advocate of class interests;

    175
    and on that account, if on no other, he thought the hon. Gentleman's proposal ought to be resisted in the interests of the poorer classes. At present they had two units of value—the pound, which regulated all large transactions, and the penny, which was the basis of all the petty cash transactions in the country. In a decimal system both could not be retained; and his hon. Friend proposed to sacrifice the penny, and so to revolutionize the whole petty cash system of this country. The working classes were the least able to appreciate the results of such a change, and, consequently, it must cause them great inconvenience. The classes whom his hon. Friend would relieve from inconvenience were the most intelligent and best educated. But the inconvenience which the working classes would sustain by the adoption of the pound and mil system was not the only objection to the system. Under that system there was no equivalent for the coins in most frequent use among the lower classes. Lord Sherbrooke, some years ago, made an amusing calculation of equivalent values under this system. A fourpenny-piece would be ·0166 and sixes ad infinitum; 3d. would be ·0125; ld. would be ·00416 and sixes ad infinitum;½d. would be ·002083 and threes ad infinitum; and ½d. would be ·0010416 and sixes ad infinitum. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not say that it would be impossible to make an adjustment; but the working classes would suffer from it, and they could not afford to do so. The adjustment which was made in France was strenuously opposed by the working classes, because the retailers took advantage of the legal change to the detriment of their customers. By any such change the working classes would assuredly suffer, and they would not be patient under the suffering. A great proportion of the wages of the country, too, as well as trade prices, were based upon the penny, and any alteration of that basis would involve the greatest possible confusion and inconvenience, and an equivalent would be very difficult to arrange. If the House, however, was of opinion that the time had come when a compulsory decimal system of coinage should be introduced, he hoped they would not be in favour of such a system as that which the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne had in his mind, which would carry with it the greatest amount
    176
    of inconvenience to the greatest number of people. There were alternative schemes—the penny scheme, for instance, which had always been considered one of the most dangerous rivals of the pound and mil scheme. The objection to it was that, under that system, the highest unit of value would be 8s. 4d., and that would not be sufficiently high to be convenient for the great mercantile transactions in which this country was engaged. He could only say that if that scheme was rejected because it was unpopular with the mercantile classes, à fortiori, the scheme of the hon. Member for Newcastle should be rejected because it would be inconvenient to the working classes. It was not fair to ask the House to adopt a vague general Resolution without saying what scheme was to be applied. On the whole question one thing was generally agreed upon, when the matter was before the House in 1855, that in a change of this kind the greatest caution should be observed; that nothing should be done until the mind of the people had been prepared for the change; and that until a demand for that alteration was made with something like practical unanimity, the change should not be attempted. Mr. Ewart, when he brought in his Bill in 1863, although he proposed to make a compulsory change, urged that what was really required was that the minds of the people should be prepared, and that especially the metric system should find some place in the education of the young. Now, he asked his hon. Friend what proof he had given that since that time the question had made any progress at all? There was no evidence of Petitions or of public meetings. This was a question with regard to which it was no use going in advance of the general feeling of the people. It had been abundantly proved in the past that one could not by legislation destroy systems which accorded with the general practical wants of the people, and which had, perhaps, a hold upon their prejudices. A generation passed away in France after the introduction of the decimal system before it was finally adopted, and Portugal took 15 years before it finally adopted the metric system. He held also that they should not attempt to force a great change of this sort upon the people from the inside of the House of Commons.

    177
    The pressure ought to come to the House of Commons from the outside; and when the people clearly expressed a desire for an alteration of the present system, Parliament would, no doubt, carry out their wishes. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Resolution to a division. If the hon. Member should do so, he would vote against him. He doubted, however, whether any good result would attend the reference of the question to another Select Committee. Five Select Committees and Royal Commissions had sat on the subject since 1840, and he did not think that any further information could be collected. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and would not press a division.
    MR. ASHTON DILKEsaid, that he was particularly anxious to see whether any change of opinion in that House had taken place within the last few years, and he therefore proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
    MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEobserved, that the litre system would be in favour of the upper classes, because by it they would obtain a pint and three-quarters of wine, whereas they now got only a pint and a-half in a bottle; but the effect of the system on the working man would be that he would get seven-eighths of a pint of beer or other liquor instead of a pint.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not propose to go into the general argument, which had been thoroughly exhausted by the speeches delivered on both sides of the House. He only wished to point out the practical position of the question. His hon. Friend proposed to abandon his Resolution and to accept a proposition which was entirely different, which, however, he did not think an expedient one. His hon. Friend proposed to accept, in substitution for a Motion that the introduction of the decimal system should no longer be delayed, an Amendment that a Committee should be appointed to inquire whether any basis for such a system could be found that would not seriously disturb existing conditions. His hon. Friend was certainly largely reducing his demand if he was disposed to be satisfied with such an Amendment. But the real question was, whether a case had been shown for a Committee. He fully concurred in the arguments of his
    178
    right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) on the inconvenience of any system involving a change in money. He had never objected to a decimal coinage per se; but he had always opposed an alteration in the penny, which must operate to the prejudice of the poorer classes, and would affect nine-tenths of the transactions of daily life. He was sure no fresh information could be obtained after the laborious investigations of Lord. Over-stone's Commission. There was no one whose opinion on such a question was entitled to so much weight as Lord Over-stone. He did not think that that already overburdened House should have such a task thrown upon it as that which was proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 108: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 171.)

PATRONAGE OF BENEFICES (CHURCH OF ENGLAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. EDWARD LEATHAMrose to call attention to the Evidence taken by the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Law and Practice as to the Sale, Exchange, and Resignation of Ecclesiastical Benefices, and their Report thereon; and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the simoniacal evasions of the law, and other scandals connected with the exercise and disposal of private patronage in the Church of England, are such as to call for remedial measures of the most stringent and radical character."
Mr. Speaker, I do not think, Sir, that I am chargeable with much of the impatience of a fanatic in calling attention for the fourth or fifth time to the traffic in Ecclesiastical Benefices. How any Churchman can read the Evidence which was taken by the Royal Commission on Patronage appointed more than two years ago, and not be moved by it to the advocacy of immediate legislative action, is one of those things which, I suppose, one must be born in the lap of the Church to understand. Of course there is one explanation, and it is one which I have often heard—that the indictment which may be based upon that Evidence against the whole ecclesiastical

179
system of the Church of England is true; that these scandals and abuses are either inherent in the system, or so firmly and inseparably built into it, that there is no defence and no escape so long as the Church is connected with the State. If that be so, the sooner we have disestablishment the better; but if that be not so, and the disease have not yet passed beyond the reach of remedy, surely those who think this are bound to bestir themselves, and that at once, if only in the interests of common decency. When, therefore, I heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) was preparing a Bill upon this subject I felt no surprise, but, on the contrary, I experienced a sense of relief, for I hoped that at last this unpalatable subject might have passed into other hands. Unfortunately, when my hon. Friend's Bill appeared it was very far from satisfactory. But whether the Bill be satisfactory or not, what is thoroughly unsatisfactory is that this great question should remain in private hands, however able. It is the Government alone, and a strong and resolute Government alone, which can deal with it effectually; and I hope that this debate will not close without our hearing from the Government some definite avowal of policy. And do not let the House suppose that I am about, at this hour, to weary it by a repetition of facts and arguments with which I fear that it is already too familiar. The Evidence which was taken by the Royal Commission is so important, and has cleared up so many doubtful points, that it constitutes almost a now departure in the history of this question. It is with this evidence that I propose chiefly to deal to-night; and if I shall leave many aspects of the question untouched, it is not because I think that what has been advanced on previous occasions has lost any of its cogency, but because I am anxious to add to it new considerations and new arguments, with which the most recent information has armed me. For I propose to discuss the question from a new stand-point. I wish, in the first place, to show how this corrupt traffic is demoralizing the clergy themselves, impairing their moral sense, enfeebling and degrading their consciences, and so poisoning, I may say, at its source that fountain of religious instruction which is presented to
180
the nation by the State. In the next place, I wish to show how wide is the area which is already covered by clerical patronage, together with the evils which it entails upon the parishes themselves; and, lastly, I wish to remind the House how rampant and flourishing this traffic has become, and how ingenious and unscrupulous are many of the agents and brokers in this peculiar branch of industry. And, first, as to the clerical conscience. The Commission examined Mr. Stark. Mr. Stark, as the House is aware, is one of those agents to whom patrons and clergymen betake themselves who are anxious to carry out these transactions with the minimum of illegality. He has to do, as he tells us, with the cream of the Profession. He is a perfectly credible witness. If he said anything which was not true, the Commission had every opportunity of convicting him of inconsistency or exaggeration. They did nothing of the kind. And yet when we remember who the persons are whom he is describing, and what guarantees they have given for holiness and purity, anything more astounding than his evidence it has never been my misfortune to read.
"2025. (Chairman.) Have you any information to give as to the extent to which the existing law of simony is contravened?—The Commissioners are well aware that the sale of advowsons, with the understanding that possession is to be given, is according to the law illegal. Three-fourths of the patrons with whom I have come in contact, and among them clergymen of the highest standing, do not recognize any moral crime in an infraction of the present law of simony, and the consequence is that they freely and unhesitatingly sell and purchase advowsons with the understanding that immediate possession is to be given, nor looking upon it as any sin. When I say clergymen of high standing, I have had business with ex-Colonial Bishops, canons, and other dignataries of the Church, who, of course, would be above suspicion in every way. * * * Three-fourths of my transactions are with immediate possession, and strictly speaking they are nearly all illegal.
"2028. (Bishop of Peterborough.) You say that the clergymen to whom you refer who offer their benefices for sale with immediate possession regard the transaction as in no way sinful; they know it nevertheless to be illegal?—Most decidedly.
"2029. Knowing it to be illegal, these clerical patrons ask you to help them to break the law?—Decidedly; and the matter is completed by solicitors of the highest standing in the country. The clerical agent simply introduces the parties. The lawyers draw up the necessary deeds.
"2030. You are, of course, aware that a simoniacal transaction in obtaining possession of a benefice voids the benefice?—Decidedly.

181
"2031. These clerical patrons are aware that if these transactions became public, and anyone took proceedings upon them, their benefices would be void?—No doubt.
"2042. That is to say, there are clergymen of the highest character who do not recognize any moral wrong in breaking the laws of their country?—You may put it that way. The law is clear and distinct. Only this morning in an interview I had with one of my clients, I pointed out to him that it was an illegal transaction. In all my transactions with my clients I have always stated that they are illegal transactions.
"We have a law as strict as it is possible to make it, short of criminalty, and yet it is evaded; and moreover the clergyman is required to take an oath to the effect that he has not paid or caused to be paid any sum of money in any transaction which to the best of his belief is simony. The clergyman says to himself, 'In my view this is not simony.'
"2062. The clergymen knows what the meaning of 'simony' in that declaration is; he knows that is a legal term which means contrary to the law of simony?—Yes.
"2063. Knowing that, these moral clergymen who first of all ask you to break the law then take an oath that they have not broken the law?—Yes."
Sir, this traffic is so corrupt and so corrupting, that its corrupt influence seems almost to taint the consciences, not only of those who are engaged in it, but of those whose business brings them into the same neighbourhood. A high authority in Ecclesiastical Law, who was one of the Commissioners, has satisfied himself apparently that the law is not broken because he can discern a distinction between a written agreement and a verbal understanding. There is no written agreement in these transactions, only a verbal understanding. And it is through this miserable loophole that these trafficking and lying clergy creep. What should we think of men who crept through such a loophole in the ordinary affairs of life? What should we think of men who thus eluded their mere pecuniary engagements? Should we not think them thorough-paced rascals? And yet these are men who are set over us by the law of the land as our moral and spiritual guides. But Mr. Stark has found a remedy for all this. He would adapt the law to the state of the clerical conscience. He would repeal the Law of Simony, and put something much gentler in its place. Mr. Stark has, I believe, many followers. Sir, I remember attending Divine Service in
182
a church the interior of which was adorned by an enormous clock. For some reason the officiating clergyman was 10 minutes late, a fact which the clock plainly indicated. At last the rev. gentleman appeared in full canonicals, and at the same moment fingers came forth from behind the clock and pushed the hand back 10 minutes. It struck me that that was the most original way of making a clergyman punctual I ever saw. Mr. Stark's way of making him moral is equally so. The law is strict, and the clerical conscience is not. Do not do anything to the clerical conscience; relax the law! Put the clock back! But, perhaps, someone will say—"These men, after all, are the exceptions. You are framing your indictment against the clerical conscience upon the evidence of an accomplice. Surely Mr. Stark is making the best of his equivocal profession by seeking to show that it has the countenance of clergymen of the highest standing." Sir, I wish I could think so. Unfortunately, Mr. Stark's statements are confirmed by other evidence which is perfectly conclusive. For example, Mr. Lee, who is secretary to I do not know how many Bishops, and who was examined by the Select Committee, states that "evasions of the law are almost universal." Mr. Bridges, examined by the same Committee, and who may be described as a solicitor in the very thick of ecclesiastical business in London, was asked these questions respecting the oath—
"You think it being a legal oath, persons not of a legal mind may not quite undertsand it?—Yes. Such persons may be very much embarrassed, or else they may come to the conclusion that the whole thing is an absurdity, and that they may get through the matter in the best way they can; that I know to be a very common state of mind.
"Have you known instances of that kind?—Yes. There have been instances in which I have been fortunate enough to stop proceedings of this kind; and there have been other cases to which I have not been so fortunate, but in which proceedings have gone on in spite of every remonstrance."
And with regard to a most discreditable transaction he was asked—
"May I ask whether the clergymen who did this was generally regarded as a respectable man?—He was a thorough gentleman by position, he was a man of good family, and there was nothing whatever against his character. He did not belong to any very earnest school in the Church."

183
Mr. Few, who is known to half the House, was also examined.
"Practically you have had considerable difficulty in getting clergymen to understand the stringent character of the oath against simony, have you not?—Undoubtedly. Even in the case of men of undoubted piety, and more especially in the case of the oath, it is quite remarkable how dense they were in seeing what its tenor was, and I remember my father constantly dwelling upon the same point, that he had to read it over to them. These were men of undoubted piety, and yet they could not see that what they desired to do was against the oath."
Now, this "density" is the direct consequence of the corrupting influence of the traffic. Surely it is of vital importance to the Church to get rid of that corrupt influence at all costs. How can we respect the teaching of the Church when we find that the teachers themselves, the moment that their selfish interests come into play, are so utterly dense and unscrupulous; and how can we endure that a Church which is unwilling or unable to clear herself from the turpitude of these transactions, should be set up and kept up by Act of Parliament as the only true exponent of what is meant by religion in England? Such being the state of the clerical conscience, it is not re-assuring to find that, thanks to our system of purchase, a very large proportion of the private patronage of the country is already in clerical hands. Not only are the livings which are still with lay patrons besieged by clergymen with their hands, and I fear in many cases with their consciences, in their pockets, but in a vast number of instances the vendors are clergymen also; for the traffic is being carried on by clergymen on both sides. Indeed, the extent of clerical patronage constitutes a very formidable danger. Anything more foreign to the intention of the law, or more mischievous to the interests of the Church, or more disastrous to the parishes themselves, can scarcely be imagined, than that system of clerical patronage, which is the creature of this illicit trade. The law forbids a clergyman to purchase a next presentation for himself; the intention of the law, no doubt, being that the patron should be one person, and the presentee another. It was hoped, doubtless, that by this arrangement the laity would be able to exercise some kind of control over the clergy and all their multitudinous vagaries. But, in defiance
184
of the intention of the law, the clergy are rapidly buying up the fee-simple of the Church. We often hear of the "functions of the laity" in the Church of England. There are a class of clergymen who regard the "functions of the laity" with contempt. They are anticipating the whole movement on behalf of the laity. They are making themselves masters of the situation. They are buying up everything over the heads of the laity with hard cash. Where are the laity in such parishes as these? "That is my pulpit," practically says such a parson. "It cost me so much. I will preach in it just what I please." "This church is my freehold. It cost me so much. I will make it ring, if I like, with denunciations of the impious interference of an Erastian Government with the things of God." "That altar cost me so much. I will deck it out and decorate it exactly as I please." And these gentlemen appear before us clothed in the whole authority of the State, and in goodness knows what amount of supernatural authority, which they say that they derive from the Church—the Church which permits her authority to be scrambled for in the market-place—the State which offers its authority to the highest bidder! Sir, I can conceive nothing more humiliating or more intolerable than the picture of such a congregation—simple, God-fearing men, it may be, and used to the Protestant Service of the Church of England as it was understood in times when the Church of England was at her best, and she was at her best in the rural parishes—I can conceive nothing more revolting than the picture of such a congregation suddenly confronted by one of these sacerdotal and simoniacal upstarts, who changes everything, overturns everything, and tramples upon everybody with all the airs of sovereignty. The parish is helplesss, the Bishop is helpless, the law is helpless. The despot is in an incontestable position; and he is there for life. He is there not through fame or merit, or because he has deserved well of the Church, or because his name is associated in any way with the locality. He has bought himself in, and read himself in. Is the House prepared for the assertion of Mr. Stark, that two-thirds of the private patronage of the Church is in the hands of clerical patrons?

185
"2098. Can you give us any reliable information as to the number of clerical patrons that there arc altogether?—No; the proportion in my gazette referring to the benefices I have now for sale is 73 clerical patrons as against 48 lay patrons. You might take that as representing what the proportion would be generally. Taking the whole number of patrons at 7,000, I fancy the number of clerical patrons would be 4,000 or 5,000."
The Rev. Samuel Slocock, an Essex rector, who appeared before the Commission as a kind of spokesman for the Essex rectors, is more precise. He estimates the value of clerical patronage in the county of Essex alone at £324,250 at 10 years' purchase, representing from 60 to 70 benefices. And Mr. Philip John Budworth, of Greenstead Hall, and late High Sheriff of the county, stated that—
"From the tolerable knowledge which he had of other parts of England besides his own, the conditions of lay and clerical patronage are in many other counties much the same as they are in Essex."
Now, Sir, this constitutes, of itself, a very flagrant abuse. "Just imagine," said Mr. Venables, who was one of the Commissioners—
"Just imagine that most of the advowsons of England were at this moment the sole property of the clergy, where would there be any interest on the part of the laity in Church matters if a man just came and thrust himself into a parish and said, This is my property. I shall just come here and do pretty much as I like.'"
Yet, this is the state of things at which we are rapidly arriving. Sometimes it is a donative which is bought. The Rev. Edward Parker Dew told the Commission that he purchased the donative of Braemore, near Salisbury, for £8,500, with a population of 600, and an annual value of £877. The House, of course, is aware that a donative is the absolute property of the purchaser. He can present himself and resign when he pleases, without troubling the Bishop. Sometimes it is a family living which is purchased. And by a family living I do not mean only a living which remains in the family, but which provides for the whole family. The Rev. William Bedford told the Commission of such a living—
"1650. The advowson of the living of Sutton Coldfield was sold by the Crown, by Queen Elizabeth, to a person from whom my ancestor immediately purchased it in the same reign. In the reign of Charles the Second the then patron's daughter married a clergyman who was
186
the first of a series of rectors and patrons who have gone on till the present day. * * * The value of the living is about £1,400 from tithes, and there is about 500 acres of glebe. It is a valuable living. It is near Birmingham, and the glebe is coming in for building. * * * There are three district churches, and they will become rectories after my death. I have carried a scheme through, approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and sanctioned by an Order in Council, that the patronage of those rectories should become private patronage, and the incumbents receive the tithes.
"1652. Will they be with your family?—Yes, they will be in my family. My executors will have four advowsons instead of one, and the incumbents of the district churches will be rectors instead of vicars, and take the great tithes of the districts."
A statement which was summed up by Mr. Venables as follows:—
"1667. (Rev. G. Venables.) Your view of the case, which is a very clear one, is one that regards the whole matter as property rather than a trust?—No doubt to a certain extent it is so. I have been speaking from the property point of view."
Indeed, this inevitable perversion of sentiment, this disposition to regard the whole matter as property rather than a trust, meets us everywhere throughout the plea of the clerical patrons. Mr. Slocock was asked these home questions—
"781. And if he avails himself of his position as such trustee to enrich himself in any degree to the injury of his trust, he is doing a very wrong thing, is he not?—But he must think of home.
"782. If he considers his home and his family in preference to his trust, he is disregarding his trust, is he not, he is allowing considerations of a personal nature to interfere with his duty to his trust?—Then I think the primary duty of a man is to provide for his own almost before the parishioners. He is bound to think of his family, and how can he provide for his own if this is taken away from him!"
A reply which justifies the quaint and cynical dictum of Mr. Stark that—
"2041. Church property is so mixed up with rights of property that it is difficult to distinguish between rights of property and questions of conscience."
This, I suppose, must be the apology of clergymen like the gentleman mentioned by Dr. Hobhouse, the Bishop Suffragan of Lichfield, who bought the living of P., with a population of about 800, and financed it as follows:—
"1350. He had raised a sum of money amongst the parishioners for the purpose of augmentation, which he carried to Lichfield and got doubled by the Diocesan Church Extension Society, and then he carried the double sum to

187
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so raised the income of the living from £94 to £130, I think, and then put it in the market."
Now this is frequently done. Augmentations are derived from Queen Anne's Bounty, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or both, and when the pear is round and ripe it is sold and the proceeds pocketed. Now, I do not know what the House thinks of this sort of thing; but to an unsophisticated person like myself it seems very like sacrilege and theft. We cannot wonder that Mr. Meredith, one of the clergymen examined by the Commission, should condemn the system of clerical patronage. He says—
"260. The nature of my duties, some 25 years ago, as assistant Inspector of Church schools, under the Committee of Council, used to bring me in different parts of the country in connection with the clergy, and then I noticed that in every case where there was a clerical patron the parish was badly cared for. I could give instances of parishes in which that has come under my notice individually.
"261. You state that in every case in which the patron was a clergyman the parish was badly cared for; were those cases generally where a clergyman had appointed himself?—Yes.
"262. Were they all such?—Yes, they were all such."
And as a monstrous illustration of the evils which this system inflicts upon the parishes, let me cite the well-known case of St. Giles', Camberwell. Dr. Utterton, the Bishop of Guildford, described this case to the Commissioners. He said that the parish contained before recent divisions 60,000 souls; that in the year 1846 the present vicar bought the advowson for £12,000; that the living was shortly afterwards sequestrated for something like £20,000; that the gross income was £2,300; and that the whole sum which Bishop Sumner was able to apply to the spiritual benefit of the parish was £200 a-year. The case was so outrageous that Lord St. Leonards brought it before the House of Lords; but he complained that there was no Bishop there to support him, and the matter fell through. When Bishop Wilberforce came into the diocese he asked the parishioners to join him in raising a fund of £400 a-year towards employing two additional curates and putting the vicarage into a state of repair. But no sooner had the curate in charge got into the vicarage than the vicar, who had been away for years,
188
presented himself and said—"I demand to come and be my own curate." So he took up his residence, and has been there over since. Now, do not let the House suppose that this is an isolated illustration of the mischief done by the system to the parishes. Mr. Herford, the Manchester Coroner, a gentleman well-known as a devoted Churchman, and active supporter of several Church societies, gave a detailed description of the state of a group of parishes in East Cheshire, with all of which he was familiar. He said—
"1210. The first that I would mention is Ashton-on-Mersey. In 1877 the living was offered for sale by the rector, who is occupier as well as owner of the living. As such he was able to advertise that immediate legal possession might be had, as he could, of course, vacate it on finding a purchaser. * * * The tithes were immediately sold by the present rector to a London company, whose rigid distraints caused an angry feeling and an 'indignation meeting.' For many years past the living has always been sold in the same way. The cases of individual hardship which are said to have occurred in connection with this purely mercantile mode of raising the clergyman's income are amongst the evil temporal effects of the purchase system. Then I proceed to the case of Stockport, which is a parish adjoining Ashton-on-Mersey, and a very extensive parish, the presentation to which has also for many years been sold. * * * The living was offered for auction, in 1850, at a public-house in Stockport, with other property (the 'Warren Bulkeley Arms Inn,' the 'Vernon Arms,' &c.), which sold well; but the living was withdrawn at the reserve price of £12,000, the then rector being stated to be aged 63. Eight years afterwards it was sold to the father of the present rector, who did not come into possession until 17 years after the purchase. The purchase money was £12,000, which, at compound interest, would now be worth two or three times that sum. One result of this great pecuniary loss was that the rector, whose income is £3,000 a-year, having found out what he was advised to be a flaw in the leases granted by the late rector, now claims from the lessees the land leased to them with the houses they have built upon it. A claim so disastrous to a great number of families has naturally produced great feeling against the Church, nearly a whole ward in the borough being stated to be in rebellion against the rector, and as the title to the leases is what is technically called slandered' by this claim, the leaseholders are bringing actions, in their turn, against the rector. Here, again, the evil temporal results of the purchase system are very marked. By the same purchase the rector because entitled to present to St. Thomas's Church, Stockport, and to the churches of Dukinfield, High Lane, Hyde, Marple, and Romiley. In Cheadle, the adjoining parish, the living was bought for the present rector by the lady whom he married. It includes the patronage of another church, which is held by the rector's brother. * * * Adjoining Cheadle

189
is Wilmslow, Sir Humphrey de Trafford is the owner, and being a Roman Catholic cannot present. For 216 years there has not been a presentation except by purchase. As soon as one appointment is made, the next presentation is sold. About 1824 the sudden illness of the rector (the Rev. Mr. Bradshaw) caused great alarm to the owner because the living had not been sold, and it is illegal to sell a living when vacant, or the rector is in extremis, but a purchaser in Manchester was luckily found; the owner, Mr. Trafford, was in the hunting field, and there executed the sale for £6,000. The Bishop refused to accept the clergyman, because the late rector had been in articulo mortis, having died very shortly after the sale was made. There wore three actions to decide the question; but the House of Lords, 'in the interests of property,' ultimately decided against the Bishop. Constant war has been the normal state of the parish, and. numberless pamphlets and papers have been issued by churchwardens and others, in one of which the churchwardens speak of 'this monstrous system of buying and selling the welfare of immortal souls.' And they ask, 'What is the purchasing of a living but spiritual domination on the one side, and spiritual slavery on the other?' The state of the Church and of the parish seems to me just what might have been expected. from the existence of the system of purchase so many years. * * * Adjoining the last-mentioned parish is that of Prestbury, the mother church of the town of Macclesfield, which has latterly been sold, in next presentations only, by the Leghs of Adlington. The living was bought for the present vicar by his brother, and includes the patronage of the parishes of Bollington, Bosley, Rainow, Saltisford, and Winkle. These sales of sub-parishes are a most important part of the subject. Adjoining Prestbury is Astbury, the mother church of the town of Congleton, which was sold together with the presentations of Bug-Lawton, Mossley, Odd-Rode, and Smallwood. * * * The living was sold with others by the first Lord Crewe to pay the debts of his son. It is stated that when the living of Astbury was about to become vacant, one of the ladies of the Crewe family was allowed to stake it in a bet with one of the ladies of the Egerton family, the decision being made to depend upon a race between two caterpillars. * * * Adjoining Astbury is the parish of Sandbach. Early in the present century the Rev. J. Armstead bought the living, and in 1828 presented his son, who instituted a suit for vicarial tithes against his parishioners, and by this means raised the value of the living from £200 a-year to £1,600, the whole price for it being £1,500. The immemorial value of the living was shown by the fact that in an old trust deed creating scholarships at St. John's, Cambridge, the vicars of Sandbach were entitled to a prior claim for their sons on account of personal poverty,' showing that such claim was never at all anticipated for many generations. The vicar is also ex-officio patron of five other parishes, Sandbach, Heath, Goosbrey, Elworth, Church Hulme, and Wheelock, to the first two the brothers of the vicar being appointed."
Now, do not let anyone say that Mr. Herford selected a corner of the country which in these respects was very
190
much worse than any other part. If everybody were as anxious to expose and condemn this system as Mr. Herford is, similar evidence would be forthcoming from every part of the Kingdom. The House may form some estimate of the prodigious volume of this traffic by a reference to the periodical Catalogues of Preferment which are issued by the recognized agents. Mr. Stark handed in three of these instructive works, which are published by himself—namely, The Church Preferment Gazette, containing particulars of 110 Advowsons and 22 next Presentations for sale; The Private Patrons' Gazette, with the requirements of 160 or 170 bonâ fide purchasers; and The Benefice Exchange Register, with particulars of about 350 Benefices for Exchange, many of which, however, are described as being also for sale. And, before I go any further, I should like just to remind the House that when we are dealing with spiritual property, exchange is always a prettier word than sale; but in the lips of the agents the terms are nearly convertible. On previous occasions I have proved this point by evidence; and I will now add a statement in confirmation which was made by Mr. Cox, of Belper, a gentleman who has mastered the subject in all its branches, and contributed very largely to its elucidation. He says—
"23. I should like, if I might be allowed to do so, to state that, although the advertisements in The Ecclesiastical Gazette for sale have been stopped, they have not been stopped for exchange, and that the exchange, in many instances, is a mere cloak for the worst transactions that the agents engage in; for I know, of my own knowledge, that in several instances in which clergymen, in order to test the matter, since this alteration in The Ecclesiastical Gazette, have written to those agents who are now permitted to advertize exchanges, for particulars of the exchanges, they have received at the same time the lists of sales of advowsons."
But Mr. Stark's list of 132 benefices for sale and 350 for exchange represents only a part and a small part of this traffic. Mr. Cox handed in also Mr. Corbett's General Register of Church Preferment for Exchange, with particulars of 306 livings, 38 of which were for sale or exchange; but though the particulars of 306 only are given, Mr. Corbett states that he has 500 on his books. Mr. Cox handed in also Mr. Bagster's Monthly List of Church Preferment for Sale and Exchange, in

191
which there were 95 benefices for sale, 311 for exchange, and 47 for either. He handed in also Mr. Ancona's List of Church Preferment for Sale, with particulars of 36 advowsons and next presentations, and the statement made by Mr. Ancona that since the last issue he had disposed of 22 livings. Mr. Cox also referred to Mr. James Beck's advertisements, five in number, and Messrs. Andrew and Son's, of which there were four. He stated further that the Oxford Ecclesiastical Society, established in 1872, do a genuine business in advowsons and exchanges, but that he had no list of theirs to produce. Now, if we except the business of the disreputable agents entirely, we arrive at between 1,400 and 1,500 as the aggregate number of livings which are up in the market either for sale or exchange, or both, at one and the same time—not very far from one-fourth of the whole private patronage of the Church—and a careful analysis of the catalogues shows that there are not many duplicate advertisements. Let the House bear in mind that this enormous traffic is moving through hands which are prepared to admit that the bulk of it is illegal, and that it is screened by false declarations taken without compunction. Hitherto we have been speaking of patrons and agents who are punctilious in their disregard of law and in their immorality, and who know how to draw the line somewhere, although not, perhaps, at perjury. Now, let me pass on to describe quite another class of business with which purists like Mr. Stark will not soil their fingers. Mr. Stark keeps a list of "Black Sheep." It is well understood in his office that no "black sheep" need apply. But do not let the House suppose that, therefore, "black sheep" are kept out of preferment. No, Sir; they enter in sable flocks. There are agents who cultivate expressly this particular branch of the Profession. They are men who are themselves branded with crime, and who seem to take quite a fatherly interest in criminals. Mr. Stark was asked these questions—
"2175. There being very disreputable agents, those parties who have been refused by you may go to one of those disreputable agents?—Yes.
"2176. And those men being disreputable men will do disreputable work?—Yes.
"2177. Therefore the effect of your caution is this—you send all the black sheep to these
192
disreputable men?—Unfortunately, very likely that is the result.
"2178. They will do this business which you decline?—Yes.
"2179. Therefore, practically, your caution is not of much real benefit to the Church, because the dirty work can be done somewhere else?—Yes."
And now let the House listen once more to Mr. Cox.
"53. Clerical agents are not always persons of perfectly respectable character, I believe?—No.
"54. Have you any evidence to give to the Commission upon that point?—In connection with two names I have. I know something of the character of the principals of two firms, both of whom are doing or have done a large business in this matter. Mr. Workman, alias Rawlins, has carried on, and still carries on, an extensive business as a clerical agent. He is in Holy Orders. His real name is Rawlins, but he passes under a dozen different aliases. One of his first notorious transactions as a clerical agent was with the Rev. N. K. in connection with a living in the diocese of——.He cheated Mr. N. K. out of £3,000, involved him in simony, and caused bins to lose both living and money. Mr. N. K. now works as a day labourer, and is usually in the workhouse in the winter. In 1852 Rawlins, or Workman, was convicted of altering figures on a cheque from £8 to £80, and was sentenced to several years' penal servitude. On coming out of prison he at once set up as a clerical agent (he was a man of some family and private means), and he bought advowsons and next presentations of several livings; two or three of them, I am told, being openly purchased at auction in Tokenhouse Yard. He issued a monthly organ, The Church and School Gazette, published for several years at 56, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, and often had some young clergyman to assist him in the traffic as secretary. One of his plans was to advertise in The Ecclesiastical Gazette and elsewhere. I am quoting this bit of advertisement from The Ecclesiastical Gazette of December, 1869, which contains this sentence, which I ought to have mentioned in speaking of N. K.'s case—'Sequestrations, either threatened or enforced, may in many instances be relieved;' and he also inserted advertisements of loans of money to clergymen moving, &c. Thus he became acquainted with embarrassed clergy, and got many into his meshes, and used them as his tools. His frequent bankruptcy illustrates his character. In 1856 he was bankrupt in his true name of Rawlins, and then consigned to the Queen's Bench Prison for three months. In 1864, on the 9th of June, he was bankrupt in the name of 'James Murray Richard Rawlins, known as Richard Workman.' In March, 1875, he again passed through the Bankruptcy Court as Murray Richard Workman,' and perjured himself by swearing that he had never before been bankrupt or insolvent. I have referred to the Bankruptcy Court File, No. 71,349, for his last insolvency, and I found that the principal clerical creditors (all unsecured) were the Rev. R. H. Killick, Chadwell, Essex, £3,780;

193
Rev. G. H. Turner, Cambridge Gardens, Notting Hill, £4,500; the Rev. James Whatman, 26, Bridge Row, E.C.. for a small amount; Rev. T. S., £1,200, who says that the money was advanced on a condition which has wholly failed,' and that he has 'received no satisfaction or security.' Among the secured creditors are Messrs. Makrell, Smith, and Hughes for £9,180 5s. 5d., secured on the advowsons of—1. Tarring Nevill, Essex; 2. South Heighten, Essex: 3. St. Phillips, Liverpool; 4. Newton St. Petrox, Devon; 5. Branksea, Dorset; 6. Upton Snodbury, Worcester; 7. Chadwell, Essex; 8. Patcham, Sussex; 9. Stopsley, near Luton; 10. Dodbrooke, Devon; and 11. Two pieces of land adjoining the Vicarage at Denton. Another creditor was secured for £700 on the advowson of Llanstadwell, Wales. How these advowsons got into his hands may be illustrated by following up one case, most of which information can be got from papers filed at the Bankruptcy Court. In 1871 the Rev. T. S. (then vacating the rectory of E.) paid over to Workman, through his solicitors, £1,200. He had already placed his rectory of E. in Workman's hands for 'exchange,' and the £1,200 was given in trust to Workman in order therewith to complete the purchase of a more valuable living for Mr. T. S. Such a living Mr. T. S. never obtained. He could get no redress; he was like N. K., involved in a simoniacal transaction, and his claim to be scheduled as a creditor on Workman's insolvent estate was disallowed by the Judge on the ground that the transaction was illegal, and hence he lost his rectory and his £1,200, and was comparatively beggared. Thus Workman became possessed of the rectory of E., and presented thereto the Rev. R. Y. Mr. R. Y. has actually allowed Workman to preach in E. church."
A few months ago a suit against him being still pending, there appeared a notice of the death of Rawlins in The Times. But I am assured that he has since been seen going about his business as usual, whether in the body I cannot tell, or out of the body I cannot tell.
"The principal (if not the sole proprietor) in another energetic firm is a man of notorious character. The firm under which title he works is a recently established but very energetic one, Messrs. Milward and Co., whom I have referred to already. They advertise largely in other papers besides The Ecclesiastical Gazette. At the time of the late Sheffield Church Congress they day by day advertised in the local dailies that they had advowsons for sale from £2,000 to £10,000, and they prominently advertised in the semi-official guide to the Church Congress. Their principal is the Rev. Samuel Shipley, late Vicar of Plungar, Bottesford, near Nottingham. In 1877 he had to leave his benefice on a charge of bigamy, having married a widow lady at St. George's, Hanover Square, when his own wife was living with him at Plungar. He also did business as a common usurer on the most disgraceful terms."
Milward & Co., now, I believe, going under the style of Taylor & Co., adver-
194
tised 250 livings for exchange. But I have purposely excluded their livings and Workman's livings from my calculation, because I do not consider myself bound to accept in either case their own account of the extent of their business. Now, Sir, in reading the narrative of these gentlemen's exploits, if there be one thing which strikes us next to the rascality of the agent, it is the helplessness of the Bishop. Lord Sydney Godolphin Osborne, in the course of his evidence before the Select Committee, describes how this very Workman put "black sheep" after "black sheep" into benefices, and how the Bishop, though invariably warned of what was going on, was able to offer no resistance. But let us hear the Bishop of Peterborough before the Royal Commission, of which he was an indefatigable Member—
"1784. I should very much like, if the Commission will allow me, to relate to them four cases which occurred in my own diocese, in which the Bishop was compelled to institute persons who were utterly unfit for the parishes. They are four very remarkable cases, and I should like to have them recorded. The first was that of a paralytic, in my judgment incapable personally of performing the duties of the parish. * * * The second was a case of a man who some years previously had been a notorious drunkard; but his drunkenness and the notoriety of it had occurred beyond the limit of the Church Discipline Act two years, and I was advised that I could not refuse him institution. He was instituted to a parish within four miles of the scene of his previous drunkenness, which made him notorious, and which created a great scandal. The third was the case of a man 76 years of age, who obtained the appointment to a parish containing two considerable country towns, a laborious parish, and who, within six months after he was appointed, asked me to give him permanent leave of absence on account of physical infirmity, and that man I was obliged to institute. The last case was the case of a man who was obliged to resign his chaplaincy to a gaol because he dared not face a criminal accusation. * * * I may venture just to state this further to the Commission, that it was under the pressure of these four cases that I introduced my Bill upon the subject into the House of Lords."
Well, Sir, I venture to think that all this constitutes a very strong case against the whole purchase system. It is a case which is not to be met by any half measures, or by any attempt to close one of the avenues to fraud and crime, while you leave the other, and the broader and the more frequented one, wide open. I do not pretend to have exhausted the case. I have given the House a few

195
specimens of the Evidence with which these Blue Books are filled. I have thought it sufficient, in proposing a Motion which is so purely preliminary in character, to give an outline merely of the case, although, perhaps, it is rather a strong outline. There are many phases of the question upon which I have been unable even to touch. I have said nothing of the disgust and horror which these sales produce among Nonconformists, of the shock to religious feeling, and of the contempt which is poured upon the Church. Nor have I touched upon many points upon which I have dwelt on previous occasions. I have said nothing of the shameful auctions which are constantly taking place, and at which the cure of souls is knocked down to the highest bidder like a bale of damaged wool. I have said nothing about the piquant advertisements over which the House has often laughed; the glowing descriptions of the piggeries and shrubberies at the rectory; of the paucity of labour and the plenitude of pay; of the real county society; of the propinquity of admirals and baronets; and the abundance of trout and rooks. I have said nothing of the warming-pan system, and of the old men crawling up into their pulpits to read themselves in by the aid of jelly and negus; or of the poor man of whom I read the other day, who complained
"That his chances of preferment were gone; when it was supposed that he had a cancer, he was sounded with reference to four livings; but now that it was known that he only had a tumour patrons took no notice of him."
I have said nothing of all these things to-night, because they are only accessories, although very picturesque accessories, of the system. You may sweep them all away by legislation, and yet the question will remain precisely where it is now. You will still have the sale of a public trust. You will still have the clergy, with their disordered conscience, bargaining and huckstering over an office which you have clothed with a peculiar sanctity, and left rotting in the gutter of an illicit trade. But, perhaps, some hon. Member may say—"You have pointed out the disease; but you have not written the prescription." My answer is a very simple one. I am not one of the accredited physicians. I think it disgrace enough for the Church
196
that a question which vitally affects her interests should be left year after year, and Parliament after Parliament, in the hands of an outsider. The Church is full of highly-paid and highly-gifted physicians. If you go into "another place," you may see the whole Faculty ranged upon benches. The Church is full also, as I have shown, of impotent folk, of maimed, halt, and withered morally; and it resembles Bethesda at least in this—that there is no one, except my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), to put these cripples into the pool. Sir, I hope that we shall hear something to-night from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The last Government was not a reforming Government. My right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) admitted the truth of my case. He said that these transactions were worse than bribery. He was full of a godly indignation, and did nothing. The present Government is a reforming Government. It is in reform that it lives, and moves, and has its being. I think that we have some little right to complain, when we see it pushing its reforming fingers everywhere except into that warm nest of comfortable abuses which we call the Church of England. Perhaps my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government may say that we have had glimpses to-night of something which is more like an Augean stable than a nest; and that he is not Hercules. Yes; but my right hon. Friend knows where the waters of Alpheios are waiting. He knows that if even he, with all his zeal for reform, and all his zeal for the Church, and all his legislative wisdom, be unable to find a means for the removal of the corruption with which the stable reeks, sooner or later the waters will burst in of their own accord and sweep away not only the corruption, but perhaps the stable itself and all the sleek cattle which it contains. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the simoniacal evasions of the law, and other scandals connected with the exercise and disposal of private patronage in the Church of England, are such as to call for remedial measures of the most stringent and radical character."—(Mr. Edward Leatham.)
MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he rose to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—namely, after the word "House," to insert the following words:—
"The Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Church Patronage, and of the Royal Commission on the sale, exchange, and resignation of Ecclesiastical Benefices, disclose evils connected with the exercise and disposal of Church Patronage which call for legislation at the earliest possible moment."
In rising to move this Amendment, he thought he had a double claim upon the indulgence of the House, because he was not only representing the position which would have been taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire if he had not been called away by urgent affairs, but he was also representing the position which he had occupied as Secretary of the Royal Commission, whose Report was now under examination. He was certainly inclined to view with a great deal of distrust the object with which the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) had been presented to the House. He was even inclined to look with some suspicion upon the quarter of the House from which this Motion proceeded. There was a good deal that was significant in the way in which the unsavoury details recited by his hon. Friend had been received by hon. Members around him. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) wished he could see in the way these details had been received a little more desire for purification and a little less zeal for destruction. He hoped he might credit so good a Churchman in his acts, if not in his professions, as his hon. Friend with a sincere desire to reform the Church of England and to remove the abuses, the existence of which within her pale he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would be the last to deny. By the terms of his Motion, his hon. Friend stood committed to the declaration that if the Church could be purified in respect of these matters it would be better for the State that she should continue to exist. As to the scandals touched upon by his hon. Friend, they had been before the House and the country for years. There was nothing in the evidence taken by the Royal Commissioners, as reported in November
198
1879, that was new to the country or, indeed, to the Commissioners themselves. The same sort of evidence was given before a Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1874. Most of the details on which the hon. Member for Huddersfield had dwelt were contained in the Blue Book, and there was little or nothing that was new in them. The facts relating to the abuses surrounding the traffic in Church livings were only too painfully familiar. Nor was there anything new in the character of the speech of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member, as the House well knew, was a zealous reformer in those matters, and that was not the first time he had pressed his views in respect to them upon the attention of the House. In the same manner, and with the same attractiveness of detail, his hon. Friend had urged upon the last Parliament the pressing need of reform. He could have wished, however, that his hon. Friend, instead of seeking to commit the House to this vaguely declamatory Resolution, had directed his energies into some channel which would have resulted in some definite scheme of practical legislation. To-night if, instead of venting impotently their wrath in Motions more or less hysterically worded, they were engaged in the work of removing abuses which they all admitted to exist, it would be much more satisfactory. It was for that reason that he ventured to submit to the House the Amendment which he invited the House to affirm—namely, that what was needed, at the present moment, was not so much a declaration that remedies were necessary which were surrounded by certain attributes, including that somewhat unpalatable word "radical;" but that something in the nature of specific legislation was necessary. He ventured to ask why it was that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, during all the years he had been so laboriously, and with so much sincerity, investigating the subject, had not presented some specific or remedy, which commended itself to him, for the approval of the House, and had not asked the House to give legislative effect to his particular views? He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) trusted that this evening he would hear some announcement from Her Majesty's Government, as to the view they took of the question—a question which he certainly did not intend to be behind the hon. Member in

199
estimating as one of the first magnitude. Knowing, perhaps, more than anyone in the House except the hon. Member himself of the evidence in the Blue Book, which had been passed in review to-night, it behoved him to examine some of the statements which had been made in regard to that evidence. It was evident that his hon. Friend had laid hold of all the most important and attractive particulars in that evidence; and if they were to be taken by themselves—if hon. Members were merely to read these extracts from the evidence, which generally formed part of the pamphlet in which the hon. Member subsequently published his speeches, unaccompanied by the entire text, they would by no means be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the facts of the case. He had already stated that the evidence given before the Royal Commissioners contained nothing new. All the painful and unpalatable facts discussed by the witnesses who were called before the Royal Commissioners in 1879 practically amounted to nothing that was not known before; indeed, he might inform the House that even before the Commission sat those very facts were all given in evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1874; and, as far as the evidence before the Royal Commission was concerned, it was, in a great majority of cases, the evidence of volunteers. He did not believe himself that the recommendations of the Commissioners were in the slightest degree affected by the evidence they heard. The state of the traffic was thoroughly well known to the Commissioners before a single word of the evidence was given. The hon. Member had referred to the fact that a great deal of Mr. Stark's evidence stood uncontradicted. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was certainly not them to contradict Mr. Stark's evidence; but, at the same time, he might say that if every assertion made in the course of Mr. Stark's evidence was taken to be a positive fact because it happened to be uncontradicted, the House would be in danger of falling into a very grave error. Mr. Stark was the last witness called by the Commission. He was called at his own request, in consequence of his belief that his proceedings had been reflected upon by other witnesses, which was undoubtedly the case; and the Commissioners gave him the opportunity of
200
giving such explanations as he thought proper. But it was undesirable that the Commissioners should continue to sit for an indefinite period, and that might have been the case if they had called for explanations from all the persons who were reflected upon by the evidence of Mr. Stark. It was not for the Commissioners to constitute themselves into a judicial tribunal for the trial of issues of a personal character. If such had been the case, the labour of the Royal Commissioners would have been protracted indefinitely, and that was the reason why a great deal of Mr. Stark's evidence stood unexplained and uncontradicted. His hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said that Mr. Stark's evidence was in favour, not of further restrictions in the law regarding Church patronage, but of a relaxation of the law itself. That was true; and Mr. Stark avowed himself a free trader, and thought there should be no restriction to prevent the patron from dealing with his own benefice; but it did not follow that the Royal Commissioners adopted any such view; and if the hon. Member would take the trouble to examine the evidence published by the Royal Commissioners, and also the recommendations they made, he would find that some of the dignitaries of the Church to whom his hon. Friend had paid a very doubtful compliment that night were not at all behind the hon. Member in their zeal for the reform of the patronage laws of the Church. Mr. Bedford gave evidence that he held an advowson which had been in his family from the days of Queen Elizabeth; he was a descendant of the original tenant or holder of the benefice, and he might, if he had chosen, been enjoying the whole fruits of the benefice; but, instead of that, he had divided it into four districts, and the income which he personally enjoyed as incumbent was probably divided by four. His hon. Friend, in the charge he preferred against the incumbent in this case, altogether misconceived the nature of the facts. Another witness, Mr. Meredith, was supposed to speak in strong condemnation of the great frequency with which the clergy in Holy Orders acquired patronage and accumulated it in their own hands. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) deplored that fact; but he wished to draw attention to this circumstance also, that the witness in question came to complain of the evils of

201
episcopal patronage, and to impress upon the Royal Commission that there was no evil so great as that the patronage should be in the hands of the Bishops, because they exercised it more from favouritism than in the public interest. This witness underwent a severe cross-examination, and it turned out that his motives in attacking a certain Prelate were by no means of a patriotic or public spirited character. It was fallacious to talk of the state of traffic by the mere number of advowsons which appeared in the published lists. It would be just as wise to go round to the books of every house agent in London, and conclude from the total number added up in arithmetical progression that they properly represented the total number of house properties for sale within a given area. It was just the same in regard to Church livings; and, as a proof of this assertion, he would only refer to Question 2,279, in which Mr. Stark admitted that the largest number of sales he had had in any one year was 40, which fell very far below the number given in his published catalogue. The question of the admission of black sheep into the Church on account of the laxity of the laws surrounding the law of patronage was a serious one; but it would be dealt with much better by strengthening the hands of the Bishops as to the refusal of presentees than by altering the law in regard to the sale of patronage, or by any amount of declamation in that House as regarded the practices which were connected with the sale. He confessed that it did seem to him to be irrelevant to the question now at issue before the House to try to make out that those who were outside the pale of the Church of England were the monopolists of morality, and that no ministers of any denomination ever found their way into the dock of a Criminal Court except those of the Church of England. They had been told that the late Government was not a reforming Government. He, for one, heartily wished they had accepted the opportunity which was presented to them of dealing with this subject. In the year 1875, a Bill was brought down from the House of Lords, founded on the Report of a Select Committee of that House, which might, at all events, have afforded an opportunity for an attempt to deal with some part of the subject. He knew that that Bill
202
would not have satisfied his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield; but it would have removed some of the principal sources of the evils complained of. Why it was that the subject had been referred to a Royal Commission he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) did not know; but, having been referred to a Royal Commission, he asked the House to remember what the Report of that Royal Commission was. The Report only appeared in the month of August, 1879, and it was not circulated to the public until the following November. Consequently, in the few months which remained of the late Parliament, there was scarcely any time for the late Government to take up the subject. But why the present Government, with the Report of the Royal Commission ready to their hands, had not thought proper to deal with the subject, was a fitting question for the hon. Member for Huddersfield to inquire into. There were reasons which readily suggested themselves why the Government had not taken up the question. He would not detain the House by speculations upon that matter. He sincerely hoped that, when the subject did come to be dealt with by some more satisfactory mode than a Resolution of that House, the principle would be established and recognized that patronage in the Church of England should be regarded not so much in the nature of property as in the nature of a trust of the very highest and most sacred nature. It was only by affirming these principles, and giving the fullest possible legislative effect to them, that they would succeed in securing that which was the best interest of the Church of England—namely, that she should become essentially national and popular. He begged to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that in rising to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) he must apologize for detaining the House at that late hour. He did so because he thought it was not desirable that the debate should close without one voice being heard on behalf of the English Universities. By an unfortunate series of circumstances, there was no other Member for any of the English Universities present. The recent afflic-

203
tion he had suffered, which was the cause of the absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), they all deplored, and his right hon. Friend and Colleague in the representation of the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray) was detained at home by illness. It was, therefore, only seemly that he should, however imperfectly, second the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. The House was to be congratulated on the fact that the tone of the debate differed favourably from that which it had assumed on other and similar occasions. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who, as they knew, took a strong view of the question, had not regaled them with those spicy and unsavoury anecdotes which had been allowed to encumber the question before; but had brought the subject forward in a more serious tone than upon former occasions, and on that account the hon. Member commanded more sympathy on that (the Opposition) side of the House with the object he had in view. The hon. Gentleman opposite was quite mistaken if he thought that he had a monopoly of indignation on the subject of simoniacal transactions. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not one of those who sat on the opposite side of the House who sympathized with what they believed to be the true interests of the Church of England who did not feel as strongly as he did, at the very least, with regard to those gross and crying evils; but he ventured to put it to the hon. Member and to the House that he had painted in black colours—not too black, he admitted—the special evils which the hon. Gentleman had disclosed; but he (Mr. Leatham) had painted his picture so darkly, and refused to admit anything but the darkness he had disclosed, so that he had rather left upon the House and the country, if they accepted his picture, the unfavourable impression that the cases which he had detailed were fair samples of the ordinary practices of the Church of England. That was what he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) complained of. He did not believe it could be maintained for a single moment that the state of patronage, on the whole, in the Church of England was a discreditable state of things; nor did he think the hon. Member could deny that the conduct of the
204
clergy of the Church of England, as a whole, was of the most praise worthy description. He believed there was no body of men in this country, or in any other country, who devoted a larger amount of time to better objects for lower remuneration than the clergy of the Church of England. He felt bound, as having the great honour in that House of representing a large number of the clergy, to put that lighter and brighter picture before the House. The hon. Gentleman had used such words as "the state of the clerical conscience," as if the whole of the clerical conscience was involved in the dark sins which he had depicted. Of course, if that was a true picture, there would be nothing more to be said for the Church of England; but the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman were exceptions, and by no means the rule. Then the hon. Member used the phrase "simoniacal upstarts." That was a very strong expression. He did not wish to defend any of those who were engaged in any of those nefarious practices; but he thought the hon. Gentleman a little confused matters when he brought into this subject the most difficult and delicate question of the relation of the clergy with the Bishops and Courts of Law. If his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) opinion was correct, it was not by any means the clergy who were engaged in these questionable pecuniary transactions who took part in disputes on matters of doctrine and ritual. Those who were engaged in these nefarious practices took very little trouble about doctrinal matters, and were content with the very smallest and dullest round of obligatory duties. Therefore, he did not imagine they were likely to be involved in a collision with the Courts on doctrinal questions. The hon. Gentleman had therefore confused those two very difficult questions; but the most serious complaint he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had to make against the hon. Member was this. He appeared before the House as a champion of ecclesiastical purity. He went with the hon. Gentleman to a very great extent, and wished to co-operate with him, if the hon. Gentleman would allow him. But the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), whose absence tonight they all regretted, had also tried to grapple with this question, and had, at least, given some practical exemplification of his views. That Bill was down for

205
second reading on Wednesday, the 6th of April, and against it there appeared on the Order Book a Notice of Opposition in the name of Mr. Edward Leatham. That seemed to show that the hon. Gentleman was not so very anxious to improve and reform the Church; but when a practical scheme was presented for dealing with Church patronage, then the hon. Member proposed to move, "That it be read a second time that day six months." If that was a practical exemplification of the hon. Gentleman's views, he could not say that he cared much for his theories; he hoped that in future they would have the hon. Gentleman for a supporter of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Sheffield had so ably proposed to-night; and that, when they came to any practical remedy for the present unhappy state of things, they would have the hon. Member for Huddersfield assisting, and not thwarting, any measures submitted for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman was not quite fair in implying that nothing had been done, or attempted to be done, in this matter. As long ago as 1870, his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir H. Assheton Cross) brought in a Bill for prohibiting the sale of next presentations; and he remembered that in one of his earliest efforts in that House he had the pleasure of supporting his right hon. Friend. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield was in his place at that time; but he did not remember that the hon. Gentleman took any part in that attempt to assist the Church in getting rid of one of its abuses. Again, a Bill was brought down from the House of Lords during the last Parliament, which had the support of Members of the Episcopal Bench. The hon. Gentleman had amused the House tonight with a description of the appearance which the Bench of Bishops presented, rather implying that they were beautiful to look at, but useless in their functions. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) did not know what the fairness of extreme Liberals might be; but it seemed to him that it would have been a little more fair, when the Bishops came forward in such a matter, not to indulge in sarcastic jeers at their expense; but rather to recognize the effort which they made, and to put it down to their credit. The hon. Gentleman would approach the subject in a
206
happier and more hopeful frame of mind if he could for a moment discard ecclesiastical prejudices. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friends really wished to help Churchmen to remove abuses in the Church, let them not cast sneers at those who endeavoured to remove them; but rather heartily co-operate and join hands in the same good work. He hoped that one good result of to-night's short debate would be this—that they would have from Her Majesty's Government some declaration of their views on the question. The Government were in a very strong position in this matter. They were, of course, a very strong Government, with a very strong majority at their back. ["No!"] Well, they had not a very large majority last night; but they had last week. They had another great advantage, which could not be denied, in having at their head a right hon. Friend of his, whom he was proud to call his friend, and who, besides being a very strong supporter of all that was Liberal and progressive, was also a very ardent member of the Church of England; and there was no one who could more easily, if he would give his great energies to the task, carry through a measure of Ecclesiastical Reform of the best kind in this House than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Therefore, the House to-night had an opportunity, which they did not often possess, of eliciting from Her Majesty's Government what he hoped would be a satisfactory solution of the question. He was very sorry that the question had come on at this particular part of the evening; but it could not be helped, because other matters had intervened. Two or three hours had been wasted by the Government in proposing a Private Bill, which was afterwards withdrawn; but he only referred to that circumstance because it would be unfortunate for the House and the country if they went away under the impression that the only thing that could be said on the matter was the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. While giving the hon. Member full credit for the beneficence of his intentions, he thought the matter ought to be more fairly and fully discussed; and, in seconding the Amendment, he would repeat his sincere hope that they would receive from the Government a satisfactory declaration on this important subject.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Church Patronage, and of the Royal Commission on the sale, exchange, and resignation of Ecclesiastical Benefices, disclose evils connected with the exercise and disposal of Church Patronage which call for legislation at the earliest possible moment,"—(Mr. Stuart Wortley,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend had made a very fair appeal to him; and, indeed, he thought it would be unfortunate if, in the present state of things, this debate should end in a division. For the purposes of the present discussion, he might divide the House into three sections. There was, first, the section to which his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield belonged, who described himself as acting in the character of a Nonconformist in this House. It was an eminently satisfactory state of things when they saw a Gentleman in that position, who might fairly say, if he was so disposed—"It is no part of my duty to remove the abuses in the Church, as I can carry on my warfare against it more conveniently and advantageously while those abuses remain in existence." It was a very hopeful thing to see the hon. Member come forward and endeavour, no doubt in perfect good faith, to induce the House to adopt a Resolution in favour of ending these abuses. Of hon. Gentlemen opposite he could only say that they, and many on the Ministerial side also, were of opinion that the Church Establishment ought to be preserved; and from those who held that opinion, and all others, it was to me expected that they should be in earnest in this matter. If his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield failed in his object, he could fall back upon his general principles, and say—"I will get rid altogether of the mischief which I have been unable to abate." But they, on the contrary, if their efforts to cure these abuses failed, ought to bear the whole burden and the whole odium and scandal of failure in their endeavours. They, therefore, were in a position of the highest obligation to labour in this cause; and be must say
208
that obligation had been owned on more occasions than one. It had been owned by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary in a former year, and during the present year by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who had addressed the House that night with so much ability, and by those who were his fellow-labourers in the measure they had laid upon the Table. Then there was, thirdly, the Government of the day. It was, undoubtedly, their duty—whether they were Conservative or Liberal, without prejudice to other claims, and even, it might be, in particular instances, to higher claims and other duties with which they were more especially engaged—to assist any intelligent and earnest endeavour to amend any of the institutions of the country; and certainly not least an institution so important as the National Church. The House was, therefore, he thought, in a state of remarkable union as to the Main Question; and it would be a great pity if, upon differences so small as these were, which had to be decided by the aid of the microscope, between the Motion and the Amendment, they were to go into opposite Lobbies for the purpose of emphasizing those differences. His hon. Friend who made the Motion appeared to have rather wickedly introduced into it one or two epithets to give it a flavour. That was, no doubt, perfectly fair on his part; but at the same time, when it came to a question of a solemn form of declaration, he felt quite sure that his hon. Friend would be disposed to rest satisfied with the approval and sympathy that his address had elicited in regard to his general object, and would not push, in effect, his particular attitude to the extent of a division, which might have the result of rejecting the Amendment that had been moved. He must say, in one respect, he preferred the Motion to the Amendment; for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, although he dwelt very much on the condemnation of the clerical conscience, said, with very great truth, that these abuses were abuses of private patronage. That was a very important matter to recollect. In regard to public patronage, no doubt that was open to criticism; but ever since the scandalous case of the Dean of York, it had never been before this country in connection with these gross and foul proceedings.

209
It was impossible, he admitted, to overstate the demoralizing effect of transactions of this kind upon the clergy connected with them. He did not think that any language, even the language of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, could exaggerate those mischiefs. On the other hand, it was only just to record that that portion of the clergy which was personally condemned in that way was an extremely small proportion; and most certainly one ought to bear testimony that men who were zealous in their own sense on questions of Ritual and doctrine were not men of that stamp at all. The men who engaged in simoniacal transactions were men who were much more conversant with the matters of this world and questions of temporal advantage, than with the decision of questions on which more conscientious persons were divided among themselves. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had made a warm appeal to the Government to take up this question. They were in the habit of hearing such appeals from time to time, and, no doubt, it was a proof of the confidence of the House in the Government, when they passed Resolutions that the Government ought to do this, that, and the other. It was a proof, as the hon. Member for Oxford University said, that the Government were strong in the confidence of the House. ["No!" "Hear, hear!" and laughter.] His hon. Friend said the Government were weak last night, and that was very true; but the hon. Gentleman forgot that last night they had to face a formidable institution, which might almost be termed a Land League. With regard to their opportunities of dealing with the present question, he would remind his hon. Friend that it was impossible to make two blades of grass grow in the same place; and the Government could not by any possibility take up some new question of legislation without displacing some other project of legislation. He should be very glad indeed if he saw a likelihood that they might approach this question; but that likelihood was, unfortunately, rather remote. What, then, was their practical duty at the present moment? Hon. Members were remarkably united, it appeared, in mind, admitting—whether they approved of the Established Church or not, and probably a very large majority of the House hoped that it might very long exist—
210
admitting that while the Establishment continued to exist, these scandals ought, if possible, to be removed. He must say that he hoped, though it might be desirable that the question should be dealt with by the Government, that the House would not absolutely refuse to look at the Bill which was brought in by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), simply on account of the fact that it was not brought in by the Government. He could not undertake to give an opinion on the merits of the Bill, as he had not had time to examine it with the care and attention that would be necessary. But he must say, though, perhaps, it might seem to be beginning at the wrong end, that if the last clause, which aimed at prohibiting the sale of next presentations, apart from the whole advowson—if that clause were passed and nothing else, he ventured to say that the Bill would offer great benefit to the country. He thought that an acknowledgment should be given to his hon. Friend for the Motion he had brought forward; but that they should not be called upon to draw the nice distinction that might be made between the Motion and the Amendment; and that, considering that there was a practical Bill before the House, they might refrain, on this particular occasion, from making any abstract assertion, either in the form of a Motion or an Amendment. They might, he thought, very well dispense themselves from that now; but when they came to the opportunity of considering the Bill which was before the House they would, he hoped, earnestly and heartily examine it, with a view to extracting from it whatever they could of matter which was valuable for the important object it had in view.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am very glad to have had an opportunity of hearing what has just fallen from the Prime Minister; and, so far as I am concerned, I would strongly recommend the course he has advised. I can conceive that we are all practically at one on the object we have in view; but I do not think we need go to a division, either on the Motion or the Amendment, and I should advise my hon. Friend behind me to withdraw the Amendment, if the Mover of the Motion is also willing to withdraw. I think the proposal of the Prime Minister is absolutely sound.

211
We really want to get rid of a great abuse. So long as the Church of England lasts—and I am one who hopes that it will last for generations and generations—we want to get rid of abuses existing in it; and I think the advice of the Prime Minister is sound, when he says we have a Bill before us; let us discuss the question when the Bill comes before us, with the common purpose of doing all that we can to attain the object of the Movers of the Motion and the Amendment. The hon. Member the Mover of the Motion referred to myself as having taken action on this matter. I had long felt that it was one of the greatest abuses in the Church of England; and in 1870 I brought forward a Bill which I succeeded in passing through this House; but it did not become law. I suppose the country, at that time, was not ready to pass the Bill into law, and I received a shower of abuse, which I never received before or since. Now, however, I believe all those who showered that abuse upon me have come to the same opinion as the Prime Minister—namely, one of regret that that Bill was not passed into law. That Bill was aimed solely at one point, to which the Prime Minister has alluded; and I believe that, even if that alone had been carried, we should, at the present moment, hear very little of abuses in the Church of England, so far as advowsons are concerned. That Bill was directed against next presentations, and I do not think that introduced any novel law, but only recurred to the old practice of not allowing next presentations to be sold. I was strengthened in that opinion by the present Lord Coleridge, who said that the Bill was really a return to the old system. I do not believe there was the slightest attack upon property in any form or shape; it showed exactly what the trust in the property was, and how, in the exercise of that trust, persons who possessed it could entirely preserve their rights. There is one point which I also think a great evil, but which has not been alluded to in this debate. I cannot help saying that I think the whole principle of the question of donatives is one which ought to be dealt with. With regard to the result of the Bill of 1870, do not let us think that because it was not passed into law it has not brought forth fruit. I believe that that Bill, having passed this House, worked great effect
212
in the minds of a great number of persons concerned in the matter; and some years afterwards this matter was brought forward in the House of Lords, and that House passed another Bill which they sent to this House, but which this House did not pass. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) asks why the Royal Commission was appointed if the House of Lords had dealt with the matter. I will explain how that was, because I had a great deal to do with it. The Bishop of Peterborough, who had taken great interest in the matter, came to the conclusion that the House of Commons, having passed one Bill remedying defects in one way, the House of Lord's having passed another Bill remedying the same defects in another way, it was better, instead of fighting the question out in the House, to refer the whole question to a Royal Commission to decide which way was the best. Now, what has been the result of the Royal Commission? The Royal Commission has not put aside either one or the other. The Royal Commissioners said there was great justice in both Bills; and in their Report I find that they strongly recommend all the provisions of the Bill I brought forward in 1870, and also a great number of the provisions of the Bill of the Bishop of Peterborough in the House of Lords. I do not wish at this hour of the night to detain the House further; but I have no doubt that there is a great abuse which ought to be dealt with. I regret very much that the Prime Minister, while I sympathize with the Government in the difficulties they have in hand, would not give the touch of his hand now to settle the slight differences between the several parties, who are practically agreed. I do hope that in the present Session the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) will have an opportunity of bringing forward his Bill, and that it will be fully discussed. When it is discussed I can promise the Mover of this Motion that I will give all the help I can to facilitate the removal of what I consider one of the greatest abuses of the Church of England. I hope he will give his assistance—with all the research he has bestowed on the subject—so that we may be able to come to some conclusion. But I must still make one appeal to the Government. If the Government find that the House are prac-

213
tically agreed upon this question, but that it does want a magic hand to lift them over that particular bridge, I hope the Prime Minister will not be slow to lend that hand—in order that, before the Session is over, we may arrive at some conclusion. What form that may take I cannot say; but I do hope that we may rely on the Prime Minister to give us that helping hand, and I believe we shall then do the greatest possible service to the Church and to the country at large. With regard to the Mover of the Motion, I may express the pleasure with which I have noticed the change in his tone. I have very often listened to speeches of the hon. Member with which I have been compelled to differ; but I must thank him for the tone in which he has brought the matter before the House; and I look upon that change as a favourable augury for the success of that which we all have in view.
COLONEL MAKINSwished to defend the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham), from the strictures of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), who had expressed his surprise at seeing the hon. Member's name on the Paper as opposing the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). That he considered a most natural proceeding. He believed the hon. Member wished to see an end to this scandal in the Church; but he would appeal to him not to allow his partiality for the subject to stand in the way of that being effected, and to remove his Notice of Amendment to the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, especially after what the Prime Minister had said, as to giving an opportunity for the discussion of the subject with a view to putting an end this Session, if possible, to a scandal which all agreed was one of the greatest hindrances to the good of the Church.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it seemed to him that as the hon. Member was friendly to the Bill not now before the House dealing with this and other abuses in the Church, he might withdraw his Motion, and allow the House to consider the Bill itself with their hands altogether untied. He would appeal to his hon. Friend to take that course, because it was taken a little too much for granted that Gentlemen who were within the pale of the Church of England had an exclusive right to discuss practical ques-
214
tions of reform in that Church. Many others, however, had the opinion that the abuses under consideration, and many other evils which had not been pointed. out, were inherent to a State Establishment; and that if a tithe of the abuses which had been brought to light by the Committee of the House of Lords and the Royal Commission had existed in our civil institutions, Heaven and earth would have been moved that they might be rooted out and not be perpetuated. On the other hand, if it had been the case of a Church not connected with the State, such abuses never could have grown to the magnitude and enormity of the scandal under discussion. It was wholly on account of the hybrid character of the Established Church that these things grew up to such magnitude that it seemed almost impossible to deal with them and prevent the mischief which arose from them.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDwas sure that the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) had been heard with great pleasure and interest by every Member of the House, whether he was a member of the Church of England or not. Many members of the Church might ask what right Nonconformists had to trouble themselves with plans for improving or regulating the Church; but that was not his doctrine at all. He believed that every Member of that House, and every Englishman, had an inherent right and interest in the character and the conduct and the position of the Church of England. As good citizens, they must desire to correct whatever was defective in an institution which had so powerful an influence on the morality and character of the people. The hon. Member who had just spoken assumed that the evils which, all deplored were the result of the Church of England being in connection with the State; but he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) absolutely disbelieved in that view. If that connection had been the cause it would have been found that it was not private patronage that was at fault, but public patronage. It would have been a patronage exercised by the Bishops, by the Prime Minister, by the Lord Chancellor, and by the Crown. The evils complained of resulted from the untruthful and dishonest conduct of persons who pursued a traffic contrary to the law of the land. He went entirely

215
with his hon. Friend in his endeavour to promote some measure to remedy those abuses. As to the character of the abuses, simony, strictly defined, was nothing less than the purchase and sale of spiritual things—that was Holy Orders; but it was impossible to have a real case of simony unless the Bishop concurred in the act. It was an action in which the gift of Holy Orders was purchased with money. Laymen may, at present, legally buy and sell Church patronage—but if the clergy buy presentations or advowsons for their own advantage, they break the law, and their declarations that they have committed no simoniacal act, though they may be literally true, are dishonest, inasmuch as they commit acts, designated and prohibited as simoniacal by the law of the land. After all, the real remedies remained with the Bishops themselves; for, although a man might be a patron by inheritance or by purchase, he could not put a priest into an incumbency; he could only present his nominee to the Bishop, and then the matter rested with the Bishop, whose duty it was to see whether a man was fit or unfit for the post he aspired to. If it was said that hitherto the Bishops had been helpless in the matter, then let Parliament give them more power, and let Churchmen assist them in cases where their authority was resisted. He knew a case in the Midland Counties whore the Bishop was urged to appoint a man who had only been nominated for the purpose of making the living saleable. The person nominated was a man of advanced age; the Bishop refused to make the appointment, and was, in consequence, threatened with an action. Fortunately, the Bishop was strong in the confidence of the laity and clergy of his diocese, and they rallied round him with the assurance that they would support him in resisting this aggression upon his functions. The question was never brought to an issue, for the candidate died, and the difficulty ended; but the case showed that the Bishop had the power of resisting in a case of this kind, and that, if necessary, Parliament should strengthen his hands. He would not prolong the discussion now; but if they had to consider the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) by-and-bye, he trusted that it would be with some hope of carrying it
216
to a successful issue, and that the hon. Member for Huddersfield would render assistance in pressing it through into a successful Act of Parliament.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, it was, of course, a matter for the judgment of the hon. Member whether he would withdraw his Motion or not; but he wished to enter a word of not exactly protest, but caution, with regard to what was assumed too much on the other side as to what would be the consequence of the views some hon. Members held on the subject of the sale of livings. They all agreed as to the evil; but they might differ as to the remedy, and it was because they differed as to the remedy that it ought not to be supposed that his hon. Friend should withdraw his blocking Notice for the purpose of giving facilities for making progress with the Bill referred to—a measure which, in his judgment, went the wrong way to work to effect reforms. What he said was this—and it was more particularly in consequence of the last speech they had heard that he wished to make the observation—that hon. Members on the other side of the House looked too much to the episcopal authority for checking the evil; whereas, on the other hand, many hon. Members would like to see them got rid of by proper parochial or congregational control. These hon. Members did not want it to be supposed that they were ready to give facilities for legislation to increase the power of the Bishops whilst they were looking in the opposite direction for reform.
MR. LEATHAMsaid, that he found it very difficult to resist the appeal which had been made to him by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Iilingworth), and, indeed, from all sides of the House. He thought, however, that in responding to that appeal he had some right to hope that the Government would give facilities to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire in order that they might have a full discussion of the whole question. If this were done he would withdraw his Motion, with the conviction that it had not been inoperative.
MR. GLADSTONE: With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a reference to an appeal which has been made by several hon. Members. We have every disposition to accede to

217
it if we could do so with justice to our other duties; but its practicability must depend on the question whether or not the Bill is to go into Committee containing a great deal of disputable matter—matter on which there will be a serious difference of opinion. If the Bill contains a great number of clauses, and there is much difference of opinion with regard to them, it would not, I am sure, be possible for us to give facilities for the discussion; but if the measure is brought before us in a simple form, which will be generally acceptable to the House and will not lead to much discussion, I must say, considering the importance of the matter, it will be our duty to give the necessary facilities.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHESHIRE SALT DISTRICTS COMPENSATION BILL.
Viscount EMLYN, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. LYULPH STANLEY, and Sir HENRY TYLER, nominated Members of the Committee:—And Three to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland)* (56).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) [44 Vict. c. 8]; Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) [44 Vict. c. 6]; India Office (Sale of Superfluous Land) [44 Vict. c. 7]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.) [44 Vict. c. i].

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I wish to put a Question to the noble Earl opposite as to the peculiar information which is published respecting the surrender of one of the British garrisons in the Transvaal. According to the accounts in the newspapers Potchefstroom was surrendered during the armistice, as the provisions were within one day of reaching it. According to one account, the surrender seems to have taken place after a severe fight, in which it is said that 19 officers and soldiers were killed and 90 wounded. I should, therefore, like to know whether the noble Earl has any official account of the affair?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Secretary of State for War yesterday received the following telegram from Sir Evelyn Wood:—
  "March 28.—Fort Amiel, 12 noon.—Winsloe surrendered Potchefstroom on the 21st, before my mule waggons, which left Mount Prospect the 7th, had traversed the distance—200 miles. Terms: All honours of war, retaining private weapons and property; guns and rifles surrendered, but ammunition for both to be handed to Brand for custody during war, after which to be returned to us. Garrison not to serve during the hostilities at present existing. Garrison now marching viâ Kronstadt on Natal."
  I have conferred already with Mr. Childers on the subject; but we are not yet in possession of sufficient information to guide Her Majesty's Government as to the reply to be sent to Sir Evelyn Wood.
  EARL CAIRNS: I wish to ask if the Government have any knowledge as to whether there was fighting on the occasion of the surrender of the place; and,
  90
  if so, whether there was, as reported, any loss of life?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The whole of the information we have on the subject I have just read; but if I were to venture any conjecture I should say that the newspaper accounts refer to killed and wounded during the whole time the garrison was beleaguered. That, however, is entirely conjecture on my part.

  CANDAHAR.—QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYasked Her Majesty's Government—(1) Which Government, the Indian or Afghan, receives at present the revenues of Candahar; and subject to what account? (2) In the event of Candahar being transferred to the Government of Abdurrahman, what means of protection for British subjects will be adopted; and, whether a consul, with right of flag and escort, will reside in that city?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: With regard to the first portion of my noble Friend's Question, I have to state that, although the Secretary of State has not received any specific or detailed information on the subject, there is very little reason to doubt that the Indian Government have been in receipt of the revenues of Candahar during the occupation of the place. With regard to the second part of the Question, I may say that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) hopes shortly to be informed as to what arrangements the Indian Government have made with Abdurrahman with respect to Candahar; but at present we have no specific or detailed information on the subject.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked the Lord President of the Council, What are the intentions of the Privy Council with regard to the Orders relative to foot and mouth disease which expire on the 31st of March; and whether the Privy Council have decided what regulations they intend to impose for the next few months?
  EARL SPENCER: In answer to the Question which my noble Friend has put to me, I will lay before your Lord-

  91
  ships the course which the Privy Council have taken and intend to take with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. There have been four Orders of a temporary character issued, and they expire on the 31st of March next. First, there is the "Markets and Fairs Order," by which all public sales of animals throughout England and Wales are prohibited, except by licence, the local authority being empowered to grant licences for the sale of fat stock for slaughter, while no sale of store stock is allowed without a licence from the Privy Council. This is a very strong measure, without doubt, applying as it does to the healthy districts; but there is every reason to believe that it has been effective, coupled with the restrictions imposed on the infected areas, in preventing the spread of the disease. It is clear, however, that such a severe measure could only have been enforced at a period of the year when the movement of animals is not so essential as at other times, and it is not proposed to continue that Order after the 31st instant. From that date, therefore, the holding of markets, fairs, and sales of animals will be unrestricted, except within the infected areas. The second Order, which expires on the 31st of March, is the Metropolitan Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, which limits the markets to be held in the Metropolis to the one market at Islington, at which fat animals only can be sold for slaughter within 10 days, and within the limits of the Metropolis. One very fruitful source of disease has always been this central market, and it is certain that so long as disease exists in the country a free circulation of animals that have been exposed in the Metropolitan markets throughout other districts must tend to spread the disease. The Privy Council propose, therefore, to continue the prohibition against the exit of animals front the Metropolis that have been exposed in the market for another month—namely, till April 30. The third temporary Order which was passed was an Order affecting Scotland. It was passed with a view of preventing the introduction of this very insidious disease into that country. The Privy Council passed it, and by that Order all cattle coming from England were prohibited from entering Scotland until the 31st of March. The Order has been entirely successful, I am happy to say, foot-and-mouth
  92
  disease having been completely kept out of Scotland. At the instance of the Highland Society, whom I consulted about renewing the Order, the Privy Council propose to renew this Order in Scotland until the 30th of April. They have made a modification in the Order to remedy an inconvenience which was felt by owners of stock in Scotland, who pastured animals across the Border, and who are now anxious to get those animals back to their farms. The Council will, therefore, give a relaxation of the Order to such an extent that Scotch owners who have stock across the Borders may, under a licence to be granted under certain conditions, bring them back to Scotland. The fourth Order, which has reference to the New Forest, we do not propose to renew. There is no disease, I am happy to say, around the New Forest, and the authorities in that district are anxious that the Order should not be renewed. There seems to be no necessity for renewing it. I now come to the General Infected Area Order, which affects all districts where foot-and-mouth disease exists. In the early part of the year, or the end of last year, the Privy Council carried out a large policy with regard to the infected areas. Instead of leaving a so-called "infected district" small in extent, we extended its area over the whole county, our anxiety being to forestall disease, because we found that if we waited until disease came it very often appeared at a market and spread over the county before we could take steps to stop it. The Order has been very successful, for we have had a constant diminution of disease from then to the present time. I have a Return showing the number of cases in the several districts in the different weeks from the week ending January 8 to March 26. In the week ending January 8 there were 256 outbreaks; in the week ending January 15, 217; in the following week they went down to 174; in the week ending 5th March to 70; and in the week ending 26th March to 34. That, I think, is a satisfactory result, and one which compares very favourably with other outbreaks that have taken place. The time, however, has now arrived when the Privy Council feel that they are no longer justified in keeping up such large areas, and they propose from time to time to reduce them so as to free those parts of

  93
  the existing areas which have become free from disease from the restrictions under which they are now placed. In order to do this, particular information is required from each local authority as to the state of disease within the area, for it must be remembered that by Section 26 (3) of the Act the Privy Council having declared an area infected may at any time when there is not within that area, or within some particular portion thereof, any place infected with foot-and-mouth disease, declare that area, or that portion thereof, to be free. The Privy Council cannot, therefore, deal with any area, or any part of an area, until they know that the local authority has declared all infected places in that area or part of an area to be free. The Privy Council are going carefully through each area seriatim, and have called upon the local authorities to furnish them with the requisite information. As regards the restrictions to be placed upon those parts of the country which it may be necessary to keep as infected areas, it is proposed to consolidate and simply the orders which now apply to sales and movement within those areas. Under the new Regulations, markets and sales will only be allowed under licence of the local authority for fat stock to be slaughtered within four days, but not confined, as at present, to slaughter within the areas. Store stock sales will only be allowed by license of the Privy Council; and no sale, public or private, will be allowed on any farm or premises, unless the animals to be sold have been for 14 days on the premises, and have not been in contact with other animals. With a view to the protection of healthy districts in exceptionally dangerous positions, it is proposed to allow them to prohibit the introduction of animals from any other specified districts, with the special sanction of the Privy Council. I should like, as I have touched on these matters, to refer to the Regulations which we have made at the foreign animals' wharves. Your Lordships know that the Regulations with regard to disease there are exceedingly important, and unless carried out with energy and care there is always a danger of this insidious disease getting out from the market, and being spread in different parts of the country. We have introduced very important Regulations with regard to the
  94
  foreign wharves. First of all, we have prevented a thing which, I believe, is legal, but which we thought was exceedingly dangerous—the sending of homebred cattle to the slaughterhouses at those foreign wharves. That is not illegal; but a danger arises that there might be some animals with foot-and-mouth disease recently slaughtered there, and the owners coming in contact with the disease would carry it outside after leaving the market, and we think that an important Regulation to have had introduced. We have, further, got the Corporation—and I am bound to say the Corporation have been most ready to meet the views of the Privy Council in all these matters—we have got them to divide the market in sections, and provide each section with slaughterhouses. When that is carried out, foreign animals that may arrive with disease will be kept within a certain block, not allowed to leave, and slaughtered in houses specially prepared; and, further than that, all who come in to see the cattle, whether drovers or owners, are obliged before they leave to be very thoroughly disinfected. That is not a very pleasant process; but I believe it has been satisfactorily carried out, and we hope to prevent the danger from persons going backwards and forwards from those places to other cattle. We hope to arrange for different hours of holding the markets in such a way that those who go to the foreign wharf at Deptford shall not be able to go also amongst the cattle at Islington, which has spread the disease more than once. I believe the Corporation have agreed to make an alteration with regard to the hours in order to meet that. Then, my Lords, there is another point which is not exactly arranged, but which I am endeavouring to get the Corporation to agree to—namely, to have a separate body of men to attend upon the cattle at the foreign markets. Now, the drovers and attendants on those cattle are in the habit of going to Deptford and other places, and naturally when there is disease at Deptford they carry the disease to other markets and places, and that is a source of considerable danger. I took the opportunity some time ago of visiting Deptford, and I threw out a suggestion as to that, and we now hope to carry that change into effect. We hope to be able to diminish very largely the danger, which I am afraid must to some extent

  95
  exist, from the arrival in England of animals diseased from other countries. We hope not only to carry out those Regulations at Deptford, but also to carry them out at other foreign animal wharves which are in different parts of the country. I wish also to say that my noble Friend behind me, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; has been in communication with various Governments abroad, and has urged them to make Regulations to stop the traffic of sending diseased animals to England from those countries. My Lords, I think I have stated the position in which the country stands with regard to these Orders. We are now very carefully going through all the different counties in England, and hope in every county to reduce the number of areas to a much larger extent than has been done before; and if your Lordships are interested in any particular county I should be glad to answer any question upon the subject and give any explanation. I may say we hope to publish nearly all these Orders in The Gazette to-morrow.
  LORD DENMANasked that further time should be given for the continuance of the necessity for the Orders for removal which were so easily obtained; and as the Privy Council was a deliberative body, there was yet time, before the 31st of March, to provide for their being enforced for a longer time, as they were so great a safeguard.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the establishment of Local Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read la. (No. 56.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.