Sitting of 4 July 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—London Government [171] [Second Night], debate adjourned.
Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Salt Works and Cement) * [216].
Withdrawn—Lunatics (Ireland) * [39].

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ACTING MAIL GUARDS, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, If he will cancel his order to have the three Mail Messengers at Dublin punished for their recent agitation since it has now obtained for them his grant of nearly two years' arrears of pay; will he allow them to retain their present position and to continue performing their present duties, on which they have been employed for nearly eight years; and, if he insists on their reduction to the letter carriers' establishment, which constitutes the severest punishment save dismissal that could be imposed upon them, as it will leave them a certainty of being transferred to stationary duties, and thus deprive them of nine shillings a week, will he give them the option of resigning on compensation, or will he compensate them for the emoluments which they can show to have forfeited while serving as Acting Mail Guards?
  MR. FAWCETT: I cannot admit that the placing of these men on the letter carriers' establishment involves reduction. On the contrary it appears to me that, both for the men themselves and for the Service, it is the very best thing that could be done; and I am not prepared to make any change. Whether or not they remain at those duties will depend mainly upon their own behaviour.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LICENCES TO CARRY ARMS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that, on the 10th June, Mr. Mansfield, R.M. granted a licence for a double-barrelled gun to George

  21
  Evans, of Killycreeny, Cootehill, the Orangeman, who was recently tried for the murder of Philip Maguire; by whom was this licence recommended; and, do the Government approve Evans being allowed arms?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Captain Mansfield prepared a licence with the view of issuing it to George Evans, as he was bound by law to do on the production of a certificate signed by two magistrates—Colonel Clements and Mr. H. Clements—under Section 4, Sub-section 4, of the Peace Preservation Act. Subsequently, Captain Mansfield was informed that Evans was not entitled to such a certificate, not being the occupier of an agricultural holding; the licence has, therefore, been withheld from Evans.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—PAYMENT OF RESULTS FEES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would explain why should the payment of results fees in Ireland be delayed for two months after the results examination, especially where no errors or informalities can be attributed to the teachers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is not the fact that payment of results fees is delayed for two months after the examinations. Cases of delay occur where correspondence with inspectors or others is necessary; but such cases afford no basis for a general statement of undue delay.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND)—LOANS TO IRISH LANDLORDS—CAPTAIN M'GILL.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Captain McGill, of Beaufort, Killarney, lately an official valuer under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, and at present one of the secretaries of the Irish Land Corporation, obtained a loan, under the Relief of Distress Acts, in 1879–80, for the purpose of planting trees upon a portion of his estate near Cahirciveen; whether the inspector who was sent down by the Board of Works to report upon the progress of the work never visited the exact locality at all; and, whether, in point of fact, any steps have been taken by Captain M'Gill to
  22
  carry out the work for which he obtained an advance of public money?
  MR. COURTNEY: Two loans to this gentleman were sanctioned, amounting together to £1,400. I am informed that a trustworthy Inspector duly visited the works, and reported to the Board that work had been done exceeding in value the amount of the advances. The hon. Member gives no indication of his reasons for doubting this.

  POOR LAW—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, BALLINAKILL, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed that, at a recent inquiry at Sligo, before Mr. Power, an Inspector of the Irish Local Government Board, as to circumstances connected with the election of a Poor Law Guardian for the Electoral Division of Ballinakill, in the Union of Sligo, it was proved in evidence that a number of votes had been improperly refused, and a number unduly recorded, that a proxy paper had been forged, and that a series of acts of illegality and neglect had been committed by officials concerned in the rating of the Division, and in the election for it; what action will be taken with regard to the return of a candidate at the said election, and to the conduct of the said officials; and, whether the Local Government Board will now proceed to hold a regular inquiry, and thereby afford opportunity for the tender of evidence with regard to the specific complaints which have been made of illegal conduct on the part of a candidate in the recent election for the Division of Drumcliffe, in the same Union of Sligo?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have not yet received the Inspector's Report as to the case of the Ballinakill Division, and cannot express any opinion on it until the Report and evidence are received. With regard to the Drumcliffe case, I have already more than once this Session stated that if Mr. M'Govern, the unsuccessful candidate, has any objection to make to the right of the elected Guardian to act as such, the Local Government Board are ready to receive evidence in support of that objection. Mr. M'Govern was so informed by the Board three months ago. He has not made any reply, and the Board await

  23
  any further statement or complaint before taking the case again into consideration.

  SPAIN—QUARANTINE.
  MR. LEWIS FRY (for Mr. GOURLEY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he intends adopting any measures for the purpose of inducing the Spanish Government to withdraw the recent regulations imposing quarantine upon vessels arriving from ports in the United Kingdom and the North of France with clean bills of health?
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that, under the regulations imposed by the Government of King Alfonso, ships arriving from British ports may be ordered to certain specified Spanish ports (many of them a great distance from their real destination), for the purpose of performing quarantine; whether, if so, he will give a list of the ports at which quarantine must be performed, and state its exact duration; whether any restrictions have been placed on ships from Countries actually adjoining France; whether it is within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the Government of King Alfonso has intimated to the Government of His Faithful Majesty that, unless similar regulations are adopted by Portugal, the Portuguese frontier will be subjected to the restrictions in force on the Pyrenean frontier; whether the Government of King Alfonso has placed any restrictions on ships from Countries actually adjoining France; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has taken steps to give the Government of King Alfonso the assurances that British ports are clean, and to indicate that the severity of the regulations in question is unnecessary to the safety of the public health, and detrimental to commerce and good understanding?
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what the exact quarantine regulations are in Spanish ports from Toulon or Marseilles; what the regulations are from clean French ports and from British ports as Gibraltar and Malta, where no cholera exists; and, whether the Foreign Office has made any representation to the Spanish authorities, or will do so at once, upon the ruinous quarantine regulations enforced
  24
  upon British ships from healthy ports in France and elsewhere.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The following telegram was sent to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid with regard to the regulations by which quarantine is imposed on vessels arriving at Spanish ports from the United Kingdom:—
  "It is reported that ships direct from English ports are quarantined at Bilbao in consequence of cholera at Toulon. Remonstrate against this useless impediment to trade. There is no cholera in England, and strict precautions are taken against its introduction."
  Her Majesty's Government made this remonstrance because the Spanish Government do not allege that cholera exists in England, and because it has been announced that the Portuguese Government have been asked by the Spanish Government to adopt measures of quarantine similar to those taken in Spain; but they do not feel called upon to discuss with the Spanish Government measures of quarantine adopted with reference to vessels from France, or the subject of quarantine in general. It does not appear that quarantine is imposed in Spain on vessels from countries actually adjoining France. According to existing Spanish regulations, quarantine can only be performed at ports where there are regular lazarettos; it is understood that these ports are Santander, Vigo, and Mahon. The period of quarantine established in Spain is 10 days for vessels from Toulon and Marseilles, and seven days from other French ports. Vessels from England and British possessions in the Mediterranean are subjected to three days' observation; but if they have touched at a French port the period is seven or 10 days, according to the case. Should sickness occur on board, the detention will be longer.

  TURKEY—QUARANTINE IN TURKISH WATERS.
  MR. LEWIS FRY (for Mr. GOURLEY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will endeavour to arrange with the Turkish Government to allow vessels trading between the French Mediterranean ports and the Black Sea with clean bills of health, and not communicating with the shore, to pass through the Bosphorus without performing quarantine?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Under the regulations which Her Majesty's Government understand are now

  25
  in force vessels bound to Russian ports on the Black Sea are allowed to pass through the Bosphorus without performing quarantine on condition that they take two Turkish health guards at the Dardanelles, carry them on to those ports, and after receiving pratique, Bring or send them back at the vessel's cost to the Dardanelles. It does not seem that any change has been made in this regulation in consequence of the outbreak of cholera at Toulon.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
  MR. BRINTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any support may be expected, from the Government, next Session, in furtherance of the efforts now being made to save life and property by the construction of harbours of refuge or ports of shelter, for which purpose a Bill will be introduced early in 1885?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he was afraid this Question was a little premature. It would be quite impossible for him to express an opinion upon a Bill which was not introduced, and as to the details of which he knew positively nothing. He might add that a Committee had been sitting for some time on this subject, and had not yet made its final Report; but as soon as that Report was received and had been considered he should be able to say something more on the part of the Government with regard to the question.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.
  MR. MAGNIACasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the statement is correct that Sir Charles Hartley, K.C.M.G. was appointed upon the International Consulting Committee of the Suez Canal by the Treasury; and, whether the Government will clear up the doubt which exists upon the subject by stating whether they consider themselves in any way responsible for the acts or recommendations of the English members of the said Committee?
  MR. COURTNEY: My right hon. Friend,' being unavoidably absent, has asked me to answer this Question. All the English Members of the Technical Committee were appointed by the Board of the Suez Canal Company, having been selected by them in communication
  26
  with Her Majesty's Government. Sir Charles Hartley was selected by my right hon. Friend after reference to the Foreign Office. Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the individual opinions of the gentlemen in whose selection they concurred. The Committee will report their views to the Company, as I am given to understand, late in the year; and the deliberations of the Board upon them will be known to Her Majesty's Government through our official Directors.
  MR. MAGNIACasked whether the Government was to be understood to draw any distinction between the individual and the collective opinions of Members of the Committee?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, if the Government were not responsible for the individual opinions, they could not be responsible for collective opinions.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—RUMOURED FALL OF DEBBAH.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any confirmation of the rumoured capture of Debbah and of the massacre there; whether the pilgrims who gave at Suakin the information of the safety of Berber on the 7th June are emissaries of the Mahdi, and have been arrested; whether the Emir Shemaun, who stormed Berber, has been encountered by Major Kitchener in the desert 200 miles north of Berber; and, what steps are being taken to save Dongola?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have no confirmation of the rumoured capture of Debbah. They have no reason to suppose that the Takruri pilgrims who left Khartoum on the 23rd May and Berber on the 7th ultimo were emissaries of the Mahdi. The last news of Shemaun, dated the 21st ultimo, from Major Kitchener, was that he was retiring south from El Heimar. He was at one time in the desert to the east of Korosko, where Major Kitchener expected to attack him. The Mudir of Dongola has been urged that, while giving facilities for departure to those who wished to leave, he should himself remain with the garrison and hold the place.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The noble Lord did not say whether these pilgrims had been arrested or not, as

  27
  was stated at Cairo. I assume, from his answer to the third paragraph, that the Emir referred to has not been met by Major Kitchener in the desert 200 miles north of Berber.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In regard to the first inquiry, I wish it to be understood that the Foreign Office have not had that information with regard to the pilgrims which the hon. Member says he has read in the news papers—
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not say that.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In regard to the further Question, it depends on what the hon. Member means by "encounter." In the military sense he may rather be said to have touched the Emir Shemaun.

  UNITED STATES—MR. ALFRED SHELDON.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has received, from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, information of the safety of Mr. Alfred Sheldon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I regret to say that the United States Government have not, so far as Her Majesty's Government is informed, yet succeeded in tracing what has become of Mr. Sheldon. A telegram was received from Mr. West on the 27th ultimo, stating that the Federal Government has given instructions in the matter, so that all possible steps will be taken on Mr. Sheldon's behalf.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BUSINESS—TUESDAY SETTINGS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister is slightly indisposed to-day; and, therefore, it devolves upon me to make the following Motion:—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority."
  The object of the Motion is, of course, that instead of taking, as we have hitherto done, Tuesday mornings, and leaving Tuesday evenings open, the whole of Tuesday shall be taken for
  28
  Government Business, the House meeting at 4 o'clock on that day. Last year, on the 10th of July, the proposal of the Government was considerably more extensive than that which is now made. At that time Tuesdays and Wednesdays were taken for Government Business, and Morning Sittings were taken on the Fridays. It is found, also, so far as can be gathered from both sides of the House, that taking the Tuesdays from 4 o'clock is preferred to taking Morning Sittings at 2 o'clock. Everybody knows that if a Morning Sitting is taken on Tuesday, practically the whole of that day is appropriated by the Government. The proposal is not an extensive one, and I hope that, under the circumstances, both sides of the House will be disposed to concur in the request for the purpose of forwarding Public Business. The arrangement will commence on the 8th instant.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he only echoed the general feeling in expressing regret at the absence of the Prime Minister. They could not wonder, with the work which devolved upon him and in the present state of the weather, that the right hon. Gentleman should be indisposed; but they regretted it the more because, had the Prime Minister been present, he would have said—what the Home Secretary had not told them—what Business it was seriously intended to proceed with during the remainder of the Session. There was force in the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was no great advantage made by taking Morning Sittings on Tuesdays; but the Government had had the whole of Tuesday Morning and Friday Morning Sittings for the last two months, and the present proposal must be considered, not with reference to how much further it went than the privileges already granted to the Government, but with reference to how much it was in itself. There had been several occasions, during the last two months, on which hon. Members, after having conceded the Tuesday Morning Sitting to the Government, had found themselves very hardly treated

  29
  when the Evening Sitting came. The Government considered themselves entirely free from any obligation to assist in making or keeping a House. The assistance they had received from the House had been considerable; and when a demand of this kind was made towards the end of the Session, it was usual, and, he thought, very reasonable, that the Government should state what they proposed to do with the additional time asked for. They knew there were a number of Government Bills on the Paper, and they were Bills, every one of them, which would, if fairly discussed, take a considerable time. There seemed to be no order or method in the way in which those measures were to be taken, and now was the time for the Government to declare their programme. If all the Bills were to be taken, it would be quite impossible for the Session to close at the ordinary time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had not once alluded to the state of Business in the slightest degree. What Bills did they intend to proceed with? The President of the Board of Trade had abandoned one large Bill, and his reasons were very cogent. The House ought to know whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bills on the Paper or not. He would mention two or three of them. There was the London Government Bill. Was it the intention of the Government to proceed with it or not? It would be a mere waste of time to go on discussing that, Sitting after Sitting, if there was not the least chance of passing it. Did the Government see their way to passing it? Other measures had been made to give way to that Bill, and early in the Session the significant statement was made that one of the great reasons why the Government could not introduce a redistribution scheme was that if they did so it would take up the whole of the Session, and the London Government Bill could not be passed. The House was entitled to know whether the Government seriously intended to pass the London Government Bill or not. Then there was the Railway Bill, with regard to which the President of the Board of Trade could, perhaps, tell the House something; and there were several other Government measures, in respect of which they were entitled to some further information. As he had said, he regretted the absence of the
  30
  Prime Minister, all the more because he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he would have given the House much fuller information with regard to the intended order of Business than had been afforded to them. The House wished to know what was to be done with regard to the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Sunday Closing Bill, the Universities of Scotland Bill, and the Coinage Bill. Then there was the great question of Supply. He saw the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) present, and he trusted that they would put in their protests against any unnecessary interference with a fair examination of Votes in Supply. He did not think that they were very forward with the Votes in Supply at the present moment; and if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on discussing Bills which were not likely to pass so that it might be necessary to hurry up Supply in order to enable the Session to be finished, it would be very unsatisfactory. He trusted that before the House was asked to assent to this Motion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would supply the omissions in his statement which he had pointed out, and would tell the House what Business the Government really intended to proceed with.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite must feel that in the absence of the Prime Minister it was impossible for him to make any definite statement with regard to the Bills which it was intended by Her Majesty's Government should be proceeded with. It was not usual for the Government to make any final statements as to which of their Bills they would proceed with until a later period of the Session. He, however, had no hesitation in saying that next week the Prime Minister would make a statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the London Government Bill, and that question he could answer most distinctly in the affirmative. With regard to Supply, two days a-week would be set apart for it.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, he thought facilities should be given to his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr.

  31
  Dillwyn) for the discussion of his Motion with regard to Disestablishment in Wales. The hon. Member had balloted every month since the commencement of the Session for a day to bring on his Motion. He had at last secured the first place on Tuesday, the 29th instant, and it seemed very hard that he should be deprived of it. The question was of the gravest importance, and one in which the people of Wales took a great interest; he, therefore, hoped the Government would make an exception in the case of his hon. Friend.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper with regard to the cultivation of opium in India, which, of course, he would have to give up in the face of the appeal of the Government. Supply was yet very far in the rear, and he thought its backward state was largely due to the un-wisdom with which the time of the House had hitherto been divided between the Government and private Members. He considered that it would be very much bettor if, in future, the Government made up their minds earlier in the Session to take the whole of Tuesday or the whole of Friday, instead of giving half these days to private Members. By taking the morning part of the day only little or no Business was done; for it offered an inducement to debate which ended in talking out Government measures. In the evening counts out were frequent, and private Members had no opportunity of bringing forward questions in which they were interested. After hon. Members had sat from 12 to 4 in Committee and from 4 to 7 in the House it was not easy to secure an attendance at 9 o'clock punctually. He begged to intimate to the Under Secretary of State for India that he would raise the question to which his Motion had reference when the Indian Budget was introduced.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had the first Motion on the Paper for Tuesday next. That was a Motion with regard to a large class of public servants who felt that they had a grievance which ought to be remedied. He protested against being forced to give up his place unless the Government would state frankly which of their Bills they intended to proceed with. The action of the Government would give great dissatisfaction to those who, like himself,
  32
  felt that they had a claim upon the attention of the House.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he had, also, secured the first place on one of the Tuesdays which the Government proposed to take. He hoped the House would not agree to the proposal of the Government as a protest against the way the time of the House had been used. He was rather surprised to hear from the Home Secretary that it was intended at this stage of the Session to proceed with so serious and critical a measure as the London Government Bill. In his (Lord Burghley's) opinion, it was impossible to carry such an enormous measure during the short remainder of the Session. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to give a more qualified reply with regard to that Bill to the question of the right hon. Baronet.
  MR. HEALYasked what facilities the Government would give for the progress of certain Irish Bills if this Motion were agreed to, and especially whether Government assistance would be given for getting on with the Poor Law Guardians' Elections Bill, of which the Chief Secretary expressed approval last Wednesday? The Bill had been blocked by the hon. Member for Dublin at the instance of the unscrupulous Orange Party. ["Order!"] They knew that the Orange Party in that House were toothless.
  MR. SPEAKER: The word "unscrupulous" is un-Parliamentary, and ought not to be applied to any section of Members of this House. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  MR. HEALYbegged to withdraw the expression. He also wished to know whether it was intended to proceed further with the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, which had passed the second reading without an opportunity being afforded to Irish Members of saying a single word with regard to it? Would it not be better for the Government, if the House was to be called there again in the autumn, to wind up the Session as soon as possible, and let them away while the weather was fine?
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government on the question of Supply. The House would now expect that Mondays and Thursdays would be devoted to Supply. Of the many Rules of Procedure lately

  33
  introduced, one of the most important was that which gave the Government those two days for Supply without any preceding Motion when it was the first Order. They had, therefore, a right to expect that Supply would be in a forward state. But it was not so, and they actually found the Government giving up yesterday to the London Government Bill instead of Supply. Such action was almost trifling with the convenience of the House. Until himself and his hon. Friends had heard that day from the Home Secretary that it was intended to proceed with the London Bill, they never dreamt the Government had any such intention; looking to the circumstances of the case, all that they thought was intended was to have an academical discussion on the second reading. But if they were to be told that the London Bill was to be passed this Session, all the other Business of the House would have to give way to it. There was no doubt that there would be a very large amount of discussion on the Bill in Committee. If the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) hoped to see the Bill passed this Session, he was more hopeful than many hon. Members. The Government ought, therefore, to look facts in the face. Supply was very backward. There were 23 Votes for the Army, of which only six had been taken. For the Navy, only four out of 17 Votes had been taken; and in the Civil Service, out of 139, only 26 Votes had been taken. Thus there remained no fewer than 143 Votes out of 179. If the London Bill and other measures were to be pressed forward, Supply would be hurried through, and the discussion of Votes would be a mere farce. He must protest against the conduct of the Government in this respect, as he had protested against the late Government. He would not, however, vote against the Motion; but he had a right to urge that if this additional time were given to the Government, it should be devoted to practical purposes.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), but regretted his practical conclusion. No mention had been made of the Navy Estimates. He hoped there would be an early opportunity for a full discussion on the Navy. Notwithstanding the confident announcement as to the London Government Bill,
  34
  the Government would, in his opinion, have a hard task to carry it through. If they were really serious in their intention there would be no opportunity for discussing the Estimates, or anything else. He had a Motion with respect to the Civil Service clerks on the Paper, in which 5,000 or 6,000 persons were deeply interested, and he thought it was very unfair that he should not have an opportunity to bring it forward. They ought to have a chance of discussing on the Civil Service Votes the interesting question which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) was to have brought forward on Tuesday next. The Government were much to blame for time wasted on measures like the Irish Sunday Closing Bill and other measures, which every one knew would be talked out. This year the Government had made a more than usually large demand on the time of the House in beginning so early with Morning Sittings, yet the result of these had been that stormy mornings were wasted and evenings thrown away, and great hardship inflicted on private Members. He should oppose the Motion if a Division were taken.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had argued with a good deal of force against Morning Sittings; but he did not think the hon. Member could have anticipated, for instance, that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill would have required 10 or 11 or 12 hours' discussion on its second reading. On the contrary, they expected that hon. Members, whatever their opinions might be on the Bill, would have been anxious to bring them to a test. He could not but sympathize with the hon. Member for Durham and other Members who had Motions on Tuesdays and Fridays; but the Government had taken the only course which they could have taken. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had stated very strongly the claims of Supply; but the hon. Member should remember that Monday and Thursday in next week had already been set apart for Supply. He was getting the lions's share, and he could hardly expect to get the jackal's also. The Government would certainly give an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates. Then the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had referred to the Irish

  35
  Bills which were before the House, he could not trench on the Prime Minister's functions with respect to the apportionment of the time of the House; but he could state that such portions and fragments of the time of the House as could be given to Irish measures would be devoted to certain Bills in which the Government had already expressed a very strong interest. Among those Bills were the Government Bills on the Purchase of Land and the Sunday Closing Bill. He hoped also that they would carry the private Member's Bill on Irish Poor Law Guardians, which was an excellent measure, of which the Government fully approved.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that if the House would allow him he would make, with all respect, a few observations upon its general habits. The change that had come over the habits of the House since he first became a Member was very remarkable. One element in that change was the almost total loss of independent action on the Ministerial side of the House. Yesterday, if the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had not been supported by the Opposition, he would not have been able to bring a serious grievance before the House. He had himself in former days been a "Whipper-in;" but now the function of certain Government officials seemed to be to "whip" Members out on Tuesday and Friday evenings, which constituted the small remnant of time left to the unofficial Members of the House. The fact was that hon. Members were wearied by, or could not afford time for, both Morning and Evening Sittings, so the House was easily counted out on Tuesday and Friday evenings; so that the Head of the Government, who was supposed to be the Leader of the House, was responsible for a great deal of the waste of time which, by these faulty arrangements, he contributed to produce. But there was another circumstance. The whole object of Her Majesty's Government appeared to him to be to anticipate agitation by the measures they introduced. They had carried a Reform Bill through the House, but he understood that it was not likely to become law during the present Session; and it was reported that the Government intended to propose a special Session to accomplish, not merely the object of an agitation originating out of the House,
  36
  but of an agitation which they had originated themselves within the House, or had adopted, or to which they had become parties under this new phase. With a prospect before them of not being able to accomplish their agitation—the principal object—immediately in one respect, they now proposed to use the power they had in that House—a power which was exaggerated by the want of independence among their Party—to force through the House another great measure. Now, he put it to the Home Secretary whether, by that system of forcing agitation within that House in support of democratic measures, the Government did not justify Obstruction? The House had at one memorable crisis of Obstruction been liberated, not by the Government, but by the independent action of the late Speaker.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Motion to-day raised the question of the mode of conducting Business between the Government and private Members. Long ago he had said that it would be better for the Government to take Tuesdays and Fridays for the rest of the Session. On Tuesdays there had been almost invariable "Counts-out," and now they were having a Morning Sitting. The present system was unfair to the Government and to private Members, and also to the country. There had been 17 available Tuesdays since the Session began. On nine of those the House had "Counted-out" early—before 11.30 P.M. On the first four Tuesdays the House was "Counted-out" almost before any work was done. Those days were the 4th, 11th, 18th, and 25th of March. He did not believe in private Members' legislation; and though posterity would deal severely with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), yet his hon. and learned. Friend had done good service with respect to private Members' Bills, which were almost invariably bad ones. As to Supply, he thought the time had come for something being done to put the whole question of the Business of Parliament on a different footing, so as to render the time of the House really available for practical legislation and administration and control of the Expenditure of the country. What had the Government done this Session? The Government had introduced 53 Bills, nine of which were mentioned in the Queen's Speech;

  37
  but only 14 had received the Royal Assent, and only two of those—the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the National Debt Bill—were of first-class importance. Then the Government had not fulfilled their promise to consider the whole question of the Civil Service Estimates. No other important Bill, except the Franchise Bill, had gone beyond a second reading. A statement was made yesterday, which he thought one of the most startling ever made by a British Minister, and which, he thought, would astonish the country. The President of the Board of Trade told the House that, in his judgment, and presumably that of his Colleagues, the present state of the law occasioned a preventible loss of human life at sea. If that statement were true, and, he believed, it was, then he said it was the first duty of the House, and of the Government, to endeavour to alter that state of the law. There was no measure on the Government programme which could compare in importance with a measure intended to save human life, yet what was the announcement that followed this startling statement of the President of the Board of Trade? It was that he should be compelled on Monday to ask leave to withdraw the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated also that, with the concessions that had been made, he believed if he got the Bill fairly submitted to a Grand Committee there would be no difficulty in passing it this year. In order, therefore, that his (Mr. H. H. Fowler's) conscience should be clear, he should say "No" when the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion on Monday. There ought to be no subject nearer to the heart of every Member of that House than the saving of British sailors' lives. Then there was the Bill for the regulation of railways. There could be no doubt, he thought, that if that Bill were submitted to a Grand Committee the objections on both hands would be removed, and satisfactory legislation would result. But that Bill was apparently to be thrown away. He thought they were entitled to ask from the Government a distinct statement of what they intended to do in the remaining four or five weeks of the Session. Did the Home Secretary really believe that the London Government Bill, large and important as it was, could be really discussed in Committee and advanced to
  38
  other stages along with the Business that must be disposed of? There ought to be a distinct understanding that a statement would be made by the Prime Minister early next week.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he concurred in the concluding remarks of the hon. Member; but he must remind him that the Home Secretary at the outset stated that the Prime Minister would take an opportunity of making a statement to the House. He listened with great interest to the eloquence of his hon. Friend; but he could not help thinking there was some little inconsistency in some of his conclusions that appeared to have escaped him. For instance, the hon. Member referred to a statement he (Mr. Chamberlain) made yesterday, in answer to a Question, when he said that, in his opinion, there was a preventible loss of life going on amongst our sailors, owing to the present state of the law. In his opinion that was a deplorable fact, and it was a reason why he was most reluctant to suggest to the House the abandonment of the Bill; but he must point out that a similar statement applied to other work the Government had in hand. It applied to any proposal for reforming the Government of London. So long as London was without a proper effective Municipal Government, it was quite impossible to hope that the sanitary arrangements which ought to be made would be efficiently cared for; and he believed his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, when he had the opportunity, would lay before the House conclusive facts and statistics tending to show that epidemic disease was prevalent, which would not be the case if the Municipal Government were improved. The same remarks might apply to other Bills. There was the Railway Bill. In addition to those provisions which were intended to put in a satisfactory state the relations between the Railway Companies and their customers there were provisions for the public safety. He might refer to other Bills also in charge of the Government, where, perhaps, the effect of legislation was less direct, but not less certain. He might appeal to hon. Members with regard to a Bill already mentioned—the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. Any Bill that would do anything to decrease the intemperance of the population was a

  39
  Bill that would save life, and as such was entitled to the attention of the Government and of the House. Let them not, therefore, make invidious comparisons between the Bills of one Minister and the Bills of another. Why could they not proceed with the Bills? And now he came to the point where the inconsistency of his hon. Friend came out. His hon. Friend had been urging them to give more time to Supply; but if they were to give more time to Supply at an earlier period of the Session they could not proceed with any important Bill. He thought it necessary to legislate for the wants of the country, and, if necessary, they should not hesitate to postpone Supply for the exigencies of legislation. What had they done in the present Session? His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said they had framed New Rules, by which they ought to have got more forward with Supply. That was perfectly true. The Government gave more attention to Supply in the earlier part of the Session than had ever been given before; but what was the result? The more time they gave the more talking there was and the less work done; and so they might go on. If they accepted the views of his hon. Friend they might give time until they had no time for legislation; and no course would be less satisfactory to the country than that. They had given time to the Franchise Bill, for which they put aside Supply; and did his hon. Friends complain of that? [Cries of "No, no!"] He felt sure they would not. They might have had time for Supply; but how many Votes of Censure had they had to meet during the course of this Session? [Opposition cheers. He was surprised that hon. Members opposite should take to cheering that view, for hitherto they had met their Votes of Censure, and met them successfully. [Cries of "How?"] How? By the vote of the tribunal to which hon. Members appealed. What he wanted to point out was that a portion of the limited time of the Government had been taken up by repeated Votes of Censure and by interpolated debates, which had left for Government purposes hardly any time at all at their disposal. He did not wonder at the complaints of private Members; he sympathized with them; but he could only say the proposal of the Government was not unprecedented,
  40
  except in its moderation. They were not proposing to take the whole time of the House, as they might have done, for which there would have been a precedent. They were proposing only to take Tuesdays. His hon. Friend referred to last year; but let them see what happened in the time of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out truly that it mattered little to private Members whether the Government took the whole of Tuesday or the Morning Sitting, because in the majority of cases after a Morning Sitting Members would not come down to make a House in the evening. In 1875, after the 1st of June, Tuesdays were taken by the late Government; in 1876, on the 3rd of June; in 1877, on the 5th of June; in 1878, on the 4th of June; and in 1879, from the 10th of June. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: From what date this year?] Early in May. He had no wish to trouble the House by going into a comparison between the two Governments; but it was a fact that for particular purposes the late Government had taken Morning Sittings much earlier—one year on the 13th of April, another year on the 4th of May, another year on the 11th of May, and another year on the 25th of May. He was not complaining of this; he was only showing that the present proposal was not of an unprecedented character. He recognized the importance of the Motion which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would be unable to bring forward on the 29th of July; but the hon. Member must have felt that he had not been favoured in the ballot, and that there was little chance of his really obtaining the day the ballot had given him. He hoped the House would accept the proposals of the Government. He recognized the duty of the Government to make a statement as early as possible regarding the future progress of Business. If it was not made that day, it was partly due to the indisposition of the Prime Minister, and partly to the fact that it was not usual to make the statement so early.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he had been prepared to support the Government in making a demand which was in accordance with the usual practice; but it was a reasonable expectation that the Motion should have been accompanied by a

  41
  statement as to the course of Business. He had not had the advantage of hearing the opening statement of the Home Secretary, though he had been fortunate enough to listen to the speeches of the Secretary for Ireland and the President of the Board of Trade. He condoled with the Home Secretary, however, on those speeches, which showed a capacity for Public Business in which he was lamentably deficient. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could, however, speak his own mind, if not that of the Government. Private Members were asked to part with one of their two days in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might proceed with a Bill which had not the slightest chance of passing. They were landed in this position by the unfortunate manner in which the Government were represented on this occasion. As they were promised the statement of the Prime Minister on an early day, and in its absence they could not appreciate the sacrifices they were asked to make, he moved that the debate be adjourned.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he supported the adjournment, because if the Government got those opportunities they would only use them for electioneering purposes. He would only vote with the Government on one consideration, and that was that they should use the first Tuesday for continuing the debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the subject that we were before the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. MACIVER: Of course, he could speak only to the adjournment; but, perhaps, he might be allowed to ask the Government to give some assurance that the Motion for discharging the Merchant Shipping Bill would be brought on at a time when it would be possible to discuss it. He did not wish to trespass longer on the House, because he understood that practically the question was simply the Motion for Adjournment.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he thought that it would be better to adjourn the discussion until Monday, when the Prime Minister would have an
  42
  opportunity of giving his statement, and showing that the time of the House would not be wasted.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the suggestion of the noble Lord amounted to this—that, having wasted the greater part of Friday, they should waste a great part of Monday in renewing the discussion.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that was not the question at all. The question was whether if the Prime Minister had been present he would not have complied with the reasonable request of the House, and said something as to what Business he proposed to take. The whole difficulty had arisen because, in his absence, the Home Secretary had been unwilling or unable to afford that information to which the House was entitled.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had already stated that it was not in accordance with the practice of the House at the beginning of July to make a detailed and final statement on a Motion of this kind. He adhered to that statement. He should be wrong if he said he was surprised at what had taken place; he was prepared for it by rumours which reached him both yesterday and to-day. He hoped a Division would be taken, so that it might be shown whether or not the House would go on with the Business of the country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by these mysterious observations. The gist of the case was, that facilities of this kind were never granted to the Government without some information as to the course of Business. On the present occasion, when they asked for explanations as to the use which the Government would make of these facilities, they were referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was absent, and no other Minister could say a word. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable that the debate should be adjourned.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 189: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that as the House had decided to give the Government Tuesdays without any explanation,

  43
  he rose to make one last appeal to the Home Secretary with the object of saving the time of the House. The two principal measures before the country, besides the Franchise Bill, were the Merchant Shipping Bill and the London Government Bill. Looking at what had taken place, the former measure appeared to have been brought in in order to give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of making one speech four hours in length, and the latter Bill had been introduced to enable the Home Secretary to make two speeches of two hours each. Half of the time spent on these Bills had been taken up by the right hon. Gentlemen under whose charge they were brought forward. If, however, he was wrong in his supposition, he would urge the Government to put forward the Bill which there was some chance of passing now. Which of the two had the best chance? Putting on one side the absurd remark of the President of the Board of Trade, that the London Government Bill was a life-saving Bill—it was nothing of the sort, for London was the healthiest city in the world—it was clear that while the Merchant Shipping Bill, which it was alleged was for the preservation of life, had a tolerable chance of success, the London Government Bill had none. Of the two Bills, the Government had deliberately chosen the one which had no chance of passing, and then they came down and said it was all owing to notorious Obstruction that the Business of the House could not be proceeded with. Was it not Obstruction, pure and simple, to occupy their time over a Bill which could not pass—a Bill which must take weeks and weeks before they were even able to discuss in Committee the various clauses? He repeated that the London Government Bill had no chance whatever of passing; but this would not be due to Tory Obstruction, but rather to gross mismanagement on the part of the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member expected him seriously to answer the appeal he had just made. Did the hon. Member really seriously believe that the Members of the Government were actuated by such a spirit as that which he attributed to them? Did he think that, in determining what measures should be brought forward, the Government, and the individual Members of the Government,
  44
  were only desirous of making a display by delivering speeches?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never suggested that this was their only motive.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdenied that such motives actuated them at all. [Cries of "Spoke!"] Having made the Motion, he had the right of reply. The Government were obliged to look round these questions, and a very serious element in the matter was the feeling of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and that, of course, must govern the Administration in the determination of these questions. He thought they had been a little unfairly pressed on this matter by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The absence of the Prime Minister from indisposition was quite unexpected, and it was not till the moment he (Sir William Harcourt) entered the House that he was told it would devolve on him to make this Motion. He had no doubt the Prime Minister would have given fuller explanations than any other Member of the Ministry; but a fair tender had been made to the House—namely, that the Prime Minister would make a statement at the beginning of next week. He asked that the matter should be decided now, for everyone knew that if it was not, the whole of this discussion would recur on Monday. He desired to disabuse Members of the idea that the Members of the Government were extremely anxious to undertake the greatest possible burden. There was no individual Member of the Government who, for that matter, would not gladly see the Session close to-morrow; but their duty was, according to the best of their judgment and abilities, to get through the Business of the country. It lay entirely with the House first, and with the country afterwards, whether the Government should be supported in endeavouring to discharge that duty. Therefore, they asked the House to support them in the demand they now made.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)wished to say that he felt no personal hostility to the way in which the Government had dealt with the London Government Bill; on the contrary, he was under a deep obligation to them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had done all in his power to make his seat certain at the next Election; for if ever 25,000 men were agreed on any question, quite apart from politics—

  45
  Liberals and Conservatives were both of one mind—it was upon the inadvisability of the scheme put forward. As far as he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was concerned, the Government might prolong the Session till September without his raising the slightest personal objection; other official duties kept him in London, and a late Session was no inconvenience to him. This Bill bristled with details, which would have to be examined carefully. It was not the fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was only his misfortune. He had to evolve many of the details out of his own intellect, not having the advice of those who were practically acquainted with the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to go down to posterity as the man who gave London a new Constitution and was a great Legislator. But he must not expect, for all that, that his Bill was to be muddled through in the small hours of the morning. For himself, he had no objection to the Session being prolonged into September; but he wished to warn the Government that they had undertaken in July a task which would not only task the energies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but entail great sacrifices on Members generally.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there was no disposition to oppose the proposition of the Government on its merits. It was the accompanying circumstances that had occasioned the long conversation about it. When the Prime Minister asked for a concession of time two months ago, he (Mr. J. Cowen) pointed out that it would be much better to take one whole day than two halves. Everyone acquainted with their proceedings knew that Morning Sittings did not much benefit the Government, while they placed private Members at a great disadvantage. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and he took a Division against, the Ministerial proposal, and the results had justified their action. He, for one, had no objection to allow the Government an even larger amount of control over the time of the House than they asked for, provided they would state frankly how they meant to use it. That was a reasonable request, and one that was always complied with at such a time and in such circumstances. As the Prime Minister was unable to be present, and as the Home
  46
  Secretary was not in a position to make the required statement, it would have been easy for him to adjourn the subject altogether until Friday next. If he had done this, and asked for the whole of the intermediate Tuesday, he would have got it without demur. Instead of doing that, he had demanded the time, and refused to fulfil the conditions consequent on obtaining it. It had been stated that the Ministers meant to persevere with the London Government Bill. He was very much surprised at hearing such an announcement. He did not think there was a single man in Parliament who seriously believed that the Bill could pass into law this Session. The only person who dreamt of such a result was the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). He admired that hon. Gentleman's courage, and envied his optimism. To persist in discussing a Bill that all knew would have to be abandoned was not treating Members fairly. If they were to credit the reports in circulation, an event was likely to transpire in "another place" next week which would bring them back to Parliament in the autumn. If such was the design of the Cabinet, was it fair of them to keep Members hanging on in London until the middle of August beating the air? If they selected from the list of Bills those they meant to carry, and then stated their decision to the House, there was every disposition on both sides and in every quarter to give effect to their intention. The President of the Board of Trade had spoken rather slightingly about the claims of private Members. He did not wish to re-debate the question, as he had expressed his opinions on it repeatedly. But he would say this—that while the time placed at the disposal of the Government had increased every year—and never more than during the last two or three Sessions—the time at the disposal of private Members had decreased in like proportion. He regretted this. He could see many disadvantages arising from it; but it was no use arguing the point then. He must protest against the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that there had been any wilful Obstruction this Session. There had been delay, undoubtedly—unnecessary delay, perhaps—but Obstruction of the kind known to Parliamentary practice had not occurred. The right hon. Gentleman complained of

  47
  the Votes of Censure; but those Votes of Censure were demanded by the condition of public affairs. The Government were engaged in one of the most momentous enterprizes of modern times. They were busy hatching the egg of a new African Empire. They were bungling in the process, and the Opposition were not only justified in discussing their policy, but if they had failed to do it, they would have been recreant to their duty and the interests of the country. After Egypt, the main work this Session had been the Franchise Bill. They had been told by a Member of the Government that that would effect one of the greatest revolutions that had been accomplished in this country since 1688. If that was the case, was there any man there who would undertake to say that an undue amount of time had been spent over it? Some points had been talked about too long, and some extraneous topics had been dragged into it; but, taking the controversy as a whole, he held that the Bill had made as fairly rapid progress through the House as any man experienced in legislative work could have expected. It was easy to say that one speech was too protracted and one Resolution was uncalled for; but as long as they had an Assembly of 600 Members—every one of whom had an equal right to speak—there would be tautology and verbosity. As far as his experience of Parliament went, he believed that in recent weeks the House had got into its normal condition, and that as reasonable an amount of progress had been accomplished as, under the circumstances, could have been looked for. The right hon. Gentleman complained generally of the delay in legislation. He and his Friends seamed to regard the House of Commons as a law-making machine, and nothing more. He (Mr. J. Cowen) did not share that opinion. He thought that Parliament had other functions besides passing Bills, and that the modern craving for legislation was not only unnatural, but, in the end, would be injurious. The greatest people were those who had the fewest legal restraints. The most powerful nation was that in which the greatest number of men were a law unto themselves. They required considerable legislation in the complicated society in which they lived; but he conceived that many of the laws they passed were unnecessary, some of them ineffective, and some
  48
  of them baneful. They had far better try to make vigorous, self-reliant, self-dependent men than have men hampered in all their actions by swaddling bands. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) had expressed a desire that the Motion with respect to the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales should be discussed. He, too, was anxious for such a discussion, and regretted that there had not been one already. He would take the liberty of making one other remark. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who had charge of the Resolution, used to be extremely tenacious of private Members' rights in the last Parliament; but he had witnessed, without opposition and without protest, not only their reduction, but their absolute abolition in the present. While sorry that the debate he wished to initiate could not take place, he confessed that he felt a quiet pleasure in seeing applied to his hon. Friend the restraints that he had so willingly applied to others.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the Government had come down earlier in the Session, and stated that there were a certain number of Bills which, in their judgment, it was desirable should be passed, and had asked special facilities for the purpose, the House would have been willing to meet them. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Bills they were now pressing forward were Bills which had no chance of being passed. It appeared to him that the Secretary of State was anxious to obtain the second reading of an impracticable Bill for no intelligible purpose whatever. He considered that the House was asked, practically, to waste several days, in in order that the Government might have their vanity flattered by being able to boast that the Commons had passed the second reading of the London Government Bill. It was quite unprecedented for the Government to make such a Motion without stating what they were going to do with the time placed at their disposal. He hoped the House would emphatically refuse to assent to it.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought it was rather strange that in the present political situation the Government should have come down, in the lull before the storm, and taken up this

  49
  position with, reference to the Business of the House. The House had a right to insist on its being no longer trifled with. They had a right to know why the Government wanted to waste a large amount of public time; and it was the more important that they should be told this, as the air was full of strange rumours, and everyone believed that a crisis of some kind was at hand. The questions of the Civil Service and of Disestablishment were placed on the Paper for discussion; and although they were questions which ought not to be trifled with, and were of the greatest importance, all opportunity of discussing them would be lost if the London Government Bill were to be proceeded with. He should also like to point out to the Government another question on which life was depending, and that was the question of over-pressure in Voluntary Schools. If the Vice President of the Council succeeded in killing three children every week, and an Inspector every six months, that was surely a question which the House ought to discuss. It was a further reason for not acceding to the demand of the Government that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War were absent, and that the Home Secretary had been left as the Representative of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly a very fit representative of the Prime Minister, as he had contrived to make four speeches on the subject.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGGsaid, that on behalf of private Members, and as the official representative of a Public Body, he felt bound to enter his protest against the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, which he thought was very unfair. On the second Wednesday of this Session he had got a Bill read a second time; but it had been postponed time after time, because Her Majesty's Government took away from private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays all possibility of bringing forward any measures intrusted to their care. The Bill he referred to was the Metropolitan Board of Works (Further Powers) Bill. It had been 16 times on the Notice Paper, and 16 times had he come down to proceed with it; but it had been impossible to go on with it. He did not grudge any time or trouble; but he grudged this—that, after the Metropolitan Board of
  50
  Works had intrusted him with a very great and important Bill, to enable the Board, if it existed next year—and he thought that it was hopeful—to deal with the Water Companies, which was one of the most pressing wants of the day, he should be unable to proceed with the measure. On the first day that the Bill of the Home Secretary was brought in, the House was informed that the Metropolitan Board could not deal with the Water Question. Why could it not deal with the Water Question? Because they did not receive the assistance which they had a right to demand, and because the Government blocked the way with impossible measures. The Government could have no serious hope that they would be able to pass the London Government Bill this Session. Everybody in his senses knew that. It was impossible to adequately discuss such a measure, dealing with the interests, the health, and the happiness of 4,000,000 of people in such a short time; and it was unjust that they should be compelled to pass such a measure in a hurry, merely because it suited the Government purposes to pass it. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon the subject.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he did not think that the Government would make any good use of the Tuesdays. No consideration should be shown to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who, when he had had a good place for his Motion on a Tuesday, had withdrawn his Motion, in order that the House might be "Counted out" for the convenience of the Government, to prevent him bringing forward his Motion with reference to the loss of life and property at sea. He thought they had reason to complain of the action taken by the President of the Board of Trade with respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill, because by that action those who had been attacked would be prevented from defending themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that the loss of life at sea was largely due to bad legislation; and the Bill ought to be proceeded with, so as to enable it to be shown that there were alternative proposals.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the House is not discussing the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he trusted the Speaker would pardon him. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway on the Liberal side. He hoped that the Speaker would pardon him for pointing out that he was not discussing the Merchant Shipping Bill, but only provisions which, in his opinion, ought to be substituted.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing that.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he at once bowed to the decision of the Speaker; but he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to afford an opportunity, before the close of the Session, for discussing the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade. It was perfectly clear what ought to be done, and he hoped the Government would give a means of discussing the question; but he ventured to think that Her Majesty's Government were more anxious to save themselves than to save the lives of British seamen.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that he had as good a right to complain of the conduct of the Government as any Member in the House, for he had secured the first place for two important questions next Tuesday, and also on the third Tuesday in the month; and so far back as the 1st of April he had given way in order to oblige the Government. It would have been more graceful if Ministers had told the House what they intended to do. Up to a very recent date the House did not expect the Home Secretary's Bill to come on.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcould not but sympathize with the Home Secretary in his attachment to his Bill, although that Bill was both impracticable and mischievous. The House would be surprised at the audacity of the President of the Board of Trade, who had pointed out that many lives would be saved by the Merchant Shipping Bill, and yet put that Bill in the same category as the London Government Bill. Whose fault was it if the Shipping Bill had not advanced? Months ago the right hon. Gentleman was urged to refer the measure to a Select Committee, and if it had been so referred great progress would probably by this time have been made with the Bill. Then the President of the Board of Trade had
  52
  complained of the Votes of Censure. But who was to blame for them? What was now the state of Egypt and the Soudan? The one was a pandemonium, and the other in a state of anarchy.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would not further refer to Egypt. It was Ministers who had wasted time, not only during this but duriug the proceeding four Sessions, by their mistaken policy with regard to Irish and other question. [Cries of "Question!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must again remind the hon. Member that he is wandering from the question before the House. That question is a definite one, and has nothing to do with previous Sessions.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he was discussing the grounds upon which the Government asked for Tuesdays. It was the Government who, by their mismanagement, were far more responsible for the waste of time than private Members. He complained that he was not allowed to refer to a subject of the greatest importance, which involved the safety of thousands, if not millions, of people; and that was the danger which was now threatening Egypt. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not oblige me to call further attention to the irrelevancy of his speech. I have done so twice; and if I have occasion to call him to Order a third time, I shall be obliged to resort to other measures.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He had not, however, gone as fully into the questions raised by the Motion before the House as some Members of the Government had done. The Government had not established their case; and he should oppose the Motion.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the Government were much more intent on keeping Office than of saving the lives of sailors. While the Opposition were charged with Obstruction, the delay of Public Business was entirely due to the mismanagement and misgovernment and the reticence of the Government, who had caused infinite waste of time by refusing to give information on what was going on in any part of the world, in answer to

  53
  reasonable Questions. If they had been more communicative, Business would have gone on much more smoothly.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. George Russell.)
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    [BILL 171.] SECOND READING.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [3rd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while ready to consider the question of a reform in the Government of London, this House declines to assent to a proposal by which the control over the levying and expenditure of rates would be vested in one central body to the practical extinction of the local self-government of the various cities and boroughs of the Metropolis,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: I will not discuss the question raised by my hon. Friend opposite as to the possibility of this Bill going further. But I believe the people of London are much interested in the determination by this House of what I take to be the principle of the Bill, which principle is legitimately raised at this stage on the second reading. Moreover, I think it would be of great importance to the future good government of the Metropolis, if the House should come to a wise conclusion as to what the fundamental principle of legislation on this subject should be. My hon. Friend on this side of the House, in his ingenuous speech last night, contended that what is called local government as now existing in London is in that sense worth little or nothing.
    54
    I am of opinion that the people value very highly their present system for self-protection against wasteful expenditure and reckless overcharge, although, perhaps, they may not consider it is the most complete system that can be devised. But I do not believe that they wish to be divested of their only guard against the costly caprices of centralization, without knowing distinctly why they are to be deprived of the powers which they have exercised under the direction of Parliament without question, for a quarter of a century. For my own part, I do not like to hear the Ministers of the Queen disparage existing institutions, which they ought rather to support. I differ from my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, as to the way in which he and the Home Secretary have held up to ridicule the existing Municipalities of this our "Province covered with houses." These institutions were invented by Parliament, and confirmed by Statute over and over again, and under them a vast amount of useful work has been done, and an enormous amount of taxation has been levied. One of our best and wisest traditions, seldom if ever departed from, is that which forbids exceptional legislation for any Province of the Empire, unless its unruly and disobedient condition renders the operation of ordinary laws abortive; or unless the specific change is demanded in clear and unmistakeable terms by a decisive preponderance of the industry, wealth, and intelligence of the community, whose normal rights are about to be taken away. Neither of these conditions can be alleged on the present occasion. The Province of London, consisting of the 10 cities and boroughs of the Thames, with a vast appendant fringe of urban property and population, is not only the richest and most independent, but the most peaceful and orderly Province in the Kingdom. Two facts suffice to attest the character of the Metropolis in this respect—the unexampled increase of rateable property possessed by an unparalleled number of industrious owners; and the proportionate diminution of the civil force found necessary by the Executive to preserve order. Is it because this great cluster of separate and self-supporting towns is diligent in business, fervent in loyal spirit, uncomplaining beneath heavy burthens, and untiring in

    55
    works of education and charity, that it is to be capriciously divested of the Municipal independence which all other boroughs in the Kingdom enjoy? If each and all of the cities of the Thames have been judged fit, for many years, to send separate Members to this House, to take part in the supreme Council of the nation, are they to be disfranchised, without their consent, of those local rights of self-rule which, time out of mind, every important borough around them exercises; and all this wanton change in defiance of the multiplied protest and prayers of their existing Municipal Authorities, and of great bodies of ratepayers besides, expressing their spontaneous will? It is mere trifling to treat the opposition to this Bill as only a City question. Since its introduction, three months ago, 180 Petitions have been presented against it; not a dozen in its favour; and, inasmuch as no fewer than 140 have been signed by the chairman only of a public body or a public meeting, the number of ratepayers actually represented by adverse Petitions cannot be computed at less than 40,000 or 50,000. Other tests of public opinion, equally cogent, it does not become the Legislature to disregard. Notwithstanding the influence of the Government, who are to be endowed with a vast amount of local patronage for the centralized working of the measure, and temptations of every degree held forth in the prospect of retiring pensions for the numerous office bearers under the present system in each constituency, what is the known judgment of a decisive majority of Metropolitan Members? Is it conceivable that, irrespective of Party, class, and calling, two to one of my hon. Friends and Colleagues not holding Ministerial Office should have openly expressed opinions hostile to the scheme? What right, I ask, has this House to disregard, in so signal a manner, the reciprocal respect always presumed, and always professed, for the local wishes and predilections of each constituent Province of the Empire? If we asked to be treated differently from all the rest, or if we set up some new-fangled claim to Corporate rule, jealousy of innovation, or the fear of untried example, might justify the attempt to overbear a representative minority by the unconcerned votes of mere numbers. But we ask for nothing that
    56
    the oldest cities and the smallest county towns have not possessed by Charter or Statute time out of mind—nothing that the largest and most populous manufacturing towns, uprisen to importance in our own day, have not been emulous to obtain. We ask no more; but we shall certainly be content with no less. A flimsy and futile excuse is made that until we were threatened with what is miscalled "unification," separate Charters have not been asked for. Well, what has this rather unfair reproach come to? Nine-and-twenty years ago, Parliament thought fit to impose an imperfectly developed Municipal system for London, chiefly with the object of modernizing certain portions of parochial rule; and creating the means of electing—for a few great common purposes, thoroughfares, and thorough drains, river embankments, and open bridges—the useful body called the Metropolitan Board of Works. Many public men of experience demurred at the time to the shortcomings of the Vestry scheme; but as it left each of the great localities the control of its own rates and taxes, and secured to the active and energetic men, whose worth was known to their neighbours, an effective voice in the management of their own concerns, the confiding and good-natured townsmen of Middlesex and Surrey set to working out the experimental institutions allotted them. And I maintain that, though, in some instances, they may have failed, in the main the Vestries have done as well as could have been expected, and that the business of local self-government in Marylebone, Paddington, St. George's, Hanover Square, Islington, and many others, have been more economical and efficient than that of several of our boastful Provincial towns. But if Whitehall, in its wisdom, has discovered that something better may be attempted, why are not the great communities, whose fates and whose rates, whose privilege and whose pride, are at stake, consulted as to the changes they would desire? Anything else, disguise it as you will, is mere political empiricism. I have myself been asked, in taunt, why, if I prefer separate Municipalities, and if I believe the people would prefer them, I have not brought forward a competing plan of that kind this Session? My answer is easy and plain. Long before the introduction of the present

    57
    measure, the principle of further Parliamentary Reform was, after full debate, adopted by the House; but only adopted upon the assurance, given in the most emphatic terms by Ministers, that a Redistribution Bill should be brought in next Session, in which we were told that the representation of London should be reconstructed in proportion to population and property. Would any man in his senses have proposed the municipal rearrangement of our Metropolitan boroughs, pending their Parliamentary redistribution? We do not want fantastical or outlandish lines of demarcation on different maps for different purposes. Ours is the old-fashioned English notion that every borough deemed entitled to send separate Members to Parliament ought to have its own centre and source of municipal life within itself. For good or for evil, this has been the acknowledged principle of local self-rule in the Realm for centuries. Despotic Kings and conspiring Ministers have, at various times, endeavoured to subvert it; but they have never succeeded for long; the practical good sense of the community has always reclaimed the privileges of which it was sought to despoil them; and we see no reason, because we happen to dwell on the banks of the same great river, that we should be treated differently, or told to relinquish our separate homes of self-rule for the sake of being flung into one huge truckle-bed of centralization. We look upon this scheme as one of vast monopoly, which, for purposes of practical utility, would prove unworkable; and, for the fancied sake of uniformity, would prove an utter delusion. We do not believe that the aggregate ignorance of local wants is the concentration of general knowledge, or that it would be possible to get the best men of the middle classes to make the sacrifice that would be necessary all the year round of time and health and labour in the infinite details of local government for 4,000,000 of people. If you insist on making the attempt, the first thing you ought to do in Committee is to insert a clause that, from and after the passing of this Act, the hours of the day in the Metropolis should be 36, instead of 24. What may be accomplished when that is done my poor wits do not enable me to say; but until you have
    58
    found the extra time required for the purpose, it would be worse than idle to pretend to believe that independent business men would undertake the overwhelming task: and, if not, what must ensue? Inevitably, though it may be insidiously, and at first almost imperceptibly, the substitution of paid officials for the un bought services of the men whom everywhere in their respective spheres, society in England has hitherto delighted to honour. A more corrupting and disintegrating change than this cannot be conceived. Bad laws of rating, sanitation, or police, when their blunders are laid bare, may be repealed, and better rules about assessment, sewerage, and constabulary may be adopted. But bad habits of local life, and of mean, unmanly dependence on central authority, stipendiary justice, and hired protection are not easily remedied, and when once introduced, can perhaps be never thoroughly eradicated. I do not believe that with all the army of Inspectors, and Sub-Inspectors, Commissioners at high salaries, and assistants, looking to advancement by jobs, clerks without number, and deputies without end, you would get the daily work of Metropolitan administration better done under the control of a Central Council. I am sure that you could not get it done at anything like the same cost to the ratepayers; but, even if you did, I believe it would be dear, very dear indeed, at the money. The pretence that, in a Central Council of 240, triennially chosen by Party excitement and lavish expenditure on blue posters and brass bands, you would got a superior class of men to take charge of the multifarious concerns of 10 great cities and towns, is no more than the inconsiderate chatter of West End Clubs, whose idle members look to the opening of a new career of sociable and political ambition. The promise, indeed, of such notoriety as may be gained by a few canvassing speeches and a few reckless votes when elected is distinctly held out to these pretenders, who, having no definite pursuit, and no practical knowledge, and no spare cash for speculation in Parliament, want a career that, out of nothing, will give them a chance of something. They cannot dig, but to brag they are not ashamed. They know nothing of prices that ought to be paid for contracts; nothing of values

    59
    that ought to be confirmed or rejected in surveys; nothing of the ebb and flow of the currents of trade; nothing of the pinch and fret and grief of labour; nothing of the puzzle and perplexity, the greed and the gain, that beset the overstrain of our day of competition; but they are ready to jostle from their natural place the sensible and experienced men of the middle classes, who everywhere else justly and rightfully govern local affairs as their fathers had done before them. I do not hesitate to say that this sort of over-centralization is in every sense and every aspect capable only of producing disappointment and mischief; that, however well meant as a monster experiment, its blunder would end in plunder; because it would gradually stifle all hope or possibility of spontaneous local control, substituting, or rather pretending to substitute for it, that which must, upon trial, be found utterly ineffectual. The opportunity of taxing without check or limit £30,000,000 of rateable property is too great a temption to be offered to any set of men, or rather to a majority of any set of men, chosen as this Council would be. The first few flagrant cases of partizanship or jobbery might be brought before this House; but the instincts of self-preservation would soon compel us to discourage such appeals. We are not in a condition to trifle with any serious addition to our judicial taskwork, already grievously overgrown Two years ago, we were asked to surrender many of our valued privileges for the sake of gaining a few hours of indispensable time; but if we are asked to review and revise the local controversies of 10 Metropolitan cities, how shall we ever get to bed? We shall soon be asked to sit upon Saturday, and I tremble even for the Sabbath. Only conceive the additional number of Questions that would appear on the Paper daily about matters of which the House could possibly know nothing, and the answers to which it could not possibly understand. And all this for what? To afford 240 loud-voiced demagogues and passive nominees of the Government of the day the opportunity of calling themselves Town Councillors; and hustling out of their proper places the men who best understand how local work should be done. Apart from all other considerations, the moral and social value of local self-rule is ineffably great;
    60
    as well described by Lord Russell, when showing how closely connected it has always been with our representative system, in which all men of public energy and talent cannot bear a part, it taps everywhere near its source the social ambition to render public service, which, in the main, has so much to do with all that is good and sound in our national life. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has criticized with great severity the incidents of the late agitation in certain parts of the Metropolis; but he has entirely failed to show that the public in general sympathize with the shouting and hooting of a few misconducted crowds here and there; or that the opinions and wishes of the magistrates, clergy, proprietors, employers, professional men, and respectable traders of every degree are in favour of this fantastical and outlandish measure. I freely admit that some of the public meetings recently called to discuss its provisions have been disgraced by interruption and clamour. I am sorry to say that resort to unworthy expedients of this kind for out-voting and overpowering opponents has of late grown more common than it used to be. By whomsoever used, or on whatsoever pretence, I think we are all bound to repudiate what is really nothing more or less than a return to barbarism by the needy and ignorant who lend themselves to such proceedings. But I entirely deny that the bulk of the thoughtful, industrious, and respectable community are swayed in the least degree by feeble and factious efforts at uproar, of which, after all, not one in 20 of them have ever heard. I can truly say of my own constituency that, with very few exceptions, the feeling is unanimous against any further experiments in centralism, of which they think they have already had more than enough. They know that their rates have doubled of late years, and that they are still increasing, not by local extravagance, but owing to fresh impositions exacted by precept, which they may not dispute or cut down, from the Central Bodies which have been given control over poor relief, asylums, drainage, and schools. I scarce know a man whose judgment in practical matters I am used to consult, in suburb, City, or West End, who does not regard this Bill as unworkable. The real author of the scheme is the hon. and

    61
    learned Gentleman the junior Member for Chelsea; for it is the reproduction in all its leading provisions of that which he brought in four years ago: even the mystical number of the proposed Town Council being the same in both. When asked why police and water supply were omitted in this new edition of Municipal monopoly, my hon. and learned Friend candidly owned that these were left out for the present only; but that once the novel power was firmly seated in the position now claimed for it, these and every other department would gradually be clutched, and would inevitably be won. We are asked, in short, to enact this measure as a first chapter in the code of expropriation and absorption. In one of his many speeches on the subject out-of-doors, he has foreshadowed the certain progress of Municipal confiscation. The shows and hospitalities of the City would be allowed for a time to remain; but its endowments and trusts are certain eventually to go. The civil force of the capital would shortly be placed under the command of a chief magistrate, chosen, it might be, without any previous qualification, by popular whim. Waterworks, hospitals, thoroughfares, public places of recreation, workmen's dwellings, board schools, gas lightings, and workhouses, must all be brought within the one irresponsible grasp, and be rendered submissive to its paramount will. Well might he sum up the whole in the significant phrase that what he and his friends desire is the creation of a London Parliament. A pleasant look out this for the sorely-perplexed and much troubled Body that has hitherto borne exclusively the name of Legislature within this Realm. Well, Sir, we do not want any clique of men, however, chosen absolutely to rule over us. We have had abundant and varied experience of fiscal centralization, and we want no more of it. Assimilation of wood-pavement, fireplugs, gas lamps, and the rules of oakum picking, may be important improvements in the pragmatical opinion of Whitehall; but even these prodigious benefits may be bought too dear. Any material benefit would be bought too dear if purchased at the sacrifice of local life and local self-content. The 10 cities of the Thames, like other enlightened cities, know the value of co-operation for common purposes, which are comparatively
    62
    few; but they comprehend likewise the advantages, which are comparatively many, of the application of their own resources to their own wants, and of competition in the means adopted for supplying them. We do not ask you to revoke what you have already decreed in the way of a common poor fund, a common school rate, or a Metropolitan Board of Works; though I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of that Body (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) will not take it amiss, if I say that we think he and his colleagues in Spring Gardens are already overworked, and that their zeal for the Public Service would earn them more credit if they had fewer subjects to attend to. The prevalent conviction that has grown up and grown strong by experience amongst us is, that in this important matter of Municipal rule, as in every other department of English life, the two things are the true things—local independence, balanced, not overborne, by federative institutions: central authority, acting as umpire and arbiter between occasionally conflicting interests, not ravening for prey at their expense. What would the self-contained and self-reliant towns of Lancashire or Yorkshire, of Scotland or of Ireland, say, if it was proposed to jumble them together under one Mayor, and to allow none of them to make a new sewer, raise a new fountain, christen a new street, make a fresh contract for emptying dust-bins, or hiring another clerk or additional beadle, without asking leave of the dominant faction that happened to be uppermost for the day at Central Quarters? How long do you suppose such an exotic scheme would last? I say exotic, because the only two examples you have been able to find in Christendom are French and American. In the midst of the madness of 1792, Paris was persuaded that it ought to be one and indivisible. With certain intervals of Imperialism, Royalty, and Communism, the forms of Centralized Municipality have been kept up; but how and with what results? At every whirl of the revolutionary wind, the civic machinery has been made subservient to purposes of confusion and convulsion; and such is the dread of the opportunity of mischief it affords, that down to the present day, even under a Democratic Republic, the Mayor of Paris is not allowed to be

    63
    chosen by the people or their representatives, but is nominated by the Head of the State. And what has the Centralized Corporation done for Paris? Compare their death-rate with any one of the cities of Surrey or Middlesex; compare the provisions for sewerage or lighting; compare the local rates, which are notoriously greater than ours. The other signal example is that of New York, which, in a moment of frenzy, having certain abuses which had been suffered to gain head, rashly resolved to suppress the distinct and separate institutions under which it had long thriven apace, and to establish a Mammoth Council after the pattern held up to Republican admiration in Paris. There has been some controversy about the details of this experiment, which, after all, was, in point of numbers, not half as extravagant as the same thing in London would be. I happen to have, within my own knowledge, an authority on the subject which I will give to the House without note or comment. Some time ago, before the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was in print, a gentleman of character and fortune from the other side of the ocean brought an introduction from a leading statesman at Washington, who said he desired some information about our institutions, with which he was anxious to compare his own. In the course of our conversation, he asked, was it true that we were thinking of boiling everything down to one indiscriminate uniform level, instead of preserving our old distinctive ways and means of life? I said, "I hope not;" and I assured him that some of us, at least, were not afflicted with such a foolish desire. "But," I rejoined, "how does it fare with you?" He replied—"I take it, stranger, the difference 'twixt you and us is just this—we are in the mud, and we have to get out of it; you have first to get into it, and then, if you can, to get out of it." Not being particular, I own I have no fancy, from what I have since heard from numerous other testimonies of the state of things in New York, to see London reduced to anything like the same condition for the mere sake of uniformity. Rather I should say, "Diversity for ever!" tending, as it does, to economy, liberty, and self respect. The multitude have been told that this Bill will confer on them additional power, because, by 400,000 votes, they would be
    64
    able for the first time to choose 240 men to administer the innumerable concerns of 10 overgrown cities. Sir, I can afford to use all plainness of speech when dealing with fair promises and specious hopes held forth to the people, for there is not a right or privilege that has been accorded to them in the last 30 years for which I have not voted, spoken, or written; and there is no enactment that will truly serve to better their condition which I am not ready and willing to support. Only one thing I will not do to please the people—I will not fool them by flattery into believing that they are not, as other men are, incapable of carrying on wisely an overgrown system of Centralized Government either directly or by deputy. I believe that the men who would consent to servo upon the Central Body it is proposed to constitute, and to give up the whole of their time to the duties it must involve, would not be the sort of men fit to be intrusted with them. I believe that they would be the idlers and speculators, spouters and jobbers, that would inevitably float to the top in every successive commotion, because of their want of weight; and when they failed, the cry would be raised to get clever officials, at high salaries, on whom the whole business of urban rule would devolve. But what does this imply? It was not by a multiplied staff of officials that local liberty had been cultured in England. It was by enlisting the infinitely varied shades of local competency, from the hard-toiling tradesman to the country gentleman, and rewarding them each and all in their respective spheres by the approval and praise of their neighbours, that public virtue had been nurtured and strengthened throughout the land; and it is only by such means that the genuine love of self-rule can be preserved. The tendency of exaggerated centralism is inveterately at variance with the English spirit of liberty; for it seeks to substitute the hard and selfish motives of venal devotion for the higher and worthier impulses that have hitherto prevailed. Complaint is made, and sometimes with truth, that our Metropolitan communities lack thews and sinews, owing, no doubt, to the sense of their overgrown size; and that is the reason why we ought to strengthen them by every means in our power. But this Bill would pluck them

    65
    up by the roots, and substitute for them nothing but mechanical routine and agency. Failing to persuade us by other arguments, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has appealed to our fears, on the score of sudden calamity, and has striven to scare us by the impending danger of cholera. If we do not pass this Bill, pestilence may come; and because there is over-crowding and misery in certain parishes, which, he well knows, neither this or any other Statute can suddenly eradicate, the plague may come upon us, and our homes will be made desolate, because we have not adopted this particular form of law. But if he really believes in the peril, why is not the Metropolitan Asylums Board called on at once to exercise suitable precautions? Nobody has ever accused it of slackness or parsimony in using the powers it possesses; and if new powers are necessary, why not bring in a short Bill, giving it fresh powers, which all of us would vote for, and which might be passed within a week?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have brought in a Bill for the purpose.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: Then there is an end of the argument derived from the danger of cholera; and, at all events, it must be clear to the most thoughtless that, as the present proposal, with its numberless clauses and sub-sections, would take many weeks to discuss, and then, should it pass, would take as many months to bring into operation, it is wholly delusive to press for its passing on the ground thus assigned. For all these reasons, and with many thanks to the House for permitting me, with so much length, to state them, I must give my vote against the second reading.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the House must be completely puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens). No man who was not already thoroughly acquainted, in all its details, with the system of government existing in London at the present time could possibly gather any but an incorrect impression of that system from the speech. The hon. Member spoke, over and over again, of the historical associations attaching to the 10 cities of the Metropolis as if they were existing Municipalities; and had complained that the Bill would take away from them the municipal rights
    66
    which they had possessed for ages. This was a pure figment of the hon. Member's imagination; the boroughs had no municipal existence.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: I spoke of the borough system of England created by Act of Parliament in 1835, and asked why you disfranchised them?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member, in making his explanation, repeated his statement that we proposed to disfranchise Municipalities. The Government did not propose to do so. Let them take the case of the hon. Member's own borough, there were six or seven local authorities in that borough, the borough had no ancient boundary, it was a creation of the Act of 1855, it had not even the dignity of an 1835 creation; and as to the character of some of those bodies, even the hon. Member would admit that they were not deserving of any great consideration at the hands of that House. The hon. Member declared that the Bill was practically the Bill of his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) hon. Colleague. On that he joined issue. The Bill of his hon. Colleague contained no District Councils or Representative Bodies in the various existing localities; it created one great Central Body, and no local bodies. The proposals of the Government were really those embodied in a series of carefully-drawn Resolutions brought forward by Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth in the last Parliament, on which the House pronounced an adverse opinion by a small majority.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: It was a large majority.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: At any rate, several Conservatives voted with their opponents. The hon. Member declared himself in favour, as against the Government, of encouraging Local Government by local men. That was, in the opinion of the Government, precisely what the Bill would do; and their contention was that the present elections by 13 or 16 votes could not be called elections of representatives at all. His hon. Friend asked them why they wished to take out of the ordinary order of the law and institutions of this country these 10 imaginary cities and boroughs. Their desire was not to take them out, but to put them in. They proposed to apply to London, with exceptions which had to be made owing to its extraordinary size, those principles of municipal self-government

    67
    which were applied by the Act of 1835 to the rest of the country. His hon. Friend based the whole of his speech on the assumed hostility of the public to the Bill. Well, he would only venture to give his own experience as a Metropolitan Member against that of his hon. Friend; and he ventured to assert that if this Bill were now defeated and the Party opposite came into power they would be compelled to carry this Bill. ["Oh!"] Well, that was his opinion. He knew London well. They were told of the number of Metropolitan Members who opposed this Bill — the four Members for the City, the two Members for Westminster, the two Members for Greenwich, and one each for several other boroughs; but his hon. Friend did not name the boroughs in which all the Members were in favour of the Bill. [Mr. TORRENS: Name!] They should come to that by-and-bye. [Cries of "Name!"] If they were allowed to go to a Division they would see. It was his firm conviction that if there was a General Election they would not find Conservative candidates offering themselves to Metropolitan constituencies with declarations against the principles of this Bill. As to public meetings his hon. Friend spoke vaguely; but he led the House to think that public meetings generally pronounced against the Bill. He asserted that the exact opposite was the case. From the extreme west of Chelsea down to the extreme east of Greenwich public meetings had pronounced in favour of the Bill. He would take Finsbury, where there were four meetings, two called by the opponents and two by the supporters of the Bill. The two called by the supporters were very large meetings, and they gave an all but unanimous vote. In the other two he was told, as to one, that persons were paid 1s. 6d. a-piece to attend. It was known where they were paid and who paid them. Well, at that meeting the supporters of the Bill were overborne by these paid persons. At the other meeting, which the hon. Member for Finsbury attended, he was outvoted by an immense majority.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): No, not an immense majority; it was very nearly equal.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSexplained that it was just a toss up which party was in a majority; but being opposed to the
    68
    Bill, he thought it fair to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should withdraw "immense majority;" but the meeting was called against the Bill, and it decided in favour of it. There had been no serious attempt to deny the statements as to the manner in which the agitation against the Bill had been got up. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would take his share in maintaining the accuracy of those statements. Reference had been made to Petitions. He should be glad to hear what was the amount of money paid by the City in getting up Petitions against the Bill. There was some interesting documentary evidence on the part of those concerned in getting up the agitation as to what the Petitions cost and the character of those who signed them. The hon. Member for Finsbury had attacked the Home Secretary for depreciating existing Institutions, and for holding up to ridicule existing Bodies charged with the local government of London. Now, the Home Secretary had stated, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said also, that, in their opinion, the majority of the existing Vestries and District Boards did their work very fairly. But, on the other hand, there was a minority which did their work doubtfully; and there were a few who did it about as badly as it could be done. The hon. Member for Finsbury had himself submitted a scheme quite as sweeping as this Bill. [Mr. TORRENS dissented.] He could easily prove it. His hon. Friend, for instance, proposed to establish one Municipality for Finsbury; but that would be a much greater interference with the existing system than the Bill proposed. His hon. Friend would not only give the Local Bodies the power they had now; he would give them some of the power now held by the Metropolitan Board. That was to say, his hon. Friend would sweep the Vestries off the face of the earth. [Mr. TORRENS: Incorporate them.] He contended that his hon. Friend's scheme was just as he had described it; it would sweep Vestries like St. Luke's, St. James's, and St. John's, Clerkenwell, off the face of the earth. That was a greater change than anything contained in the Bill, because the Government maintained the existing areas. No one could be satisfied with the working of the Vestries; but what did his hon. Friend

    69
    propose? That there should be a Commission — a Body something like the Railway Commission—to make them do their duty. That was a greater innovation than anything proposed by the Government. The hon. Member for Finsbury had said that he did not wish Finsbury to be divested of the powers which they had long possessed; but inasmuch as Finsbury possessed no Corporation, no such powers had been exercised by them; and, therefore, the Bill did not propose to divest them of any such powers. The hon. Member had told the House nothing about the existing Local Governing Bodies of the Metropolis. When the hon. Member came with a deputation to the Local Government Board, he did say something against the local Vestries; but that night he had said nothing of the kind. But no one had a right to ridicule or to sneer at the Vestries generally, because the majority of them were very good, although some of them were as bad as bad could be. His hon. Friend had proposed a more sweeping scheme of reform than that proposed by the Government, for he would destroy every one of the existing Vestries and District Boards, whereas the Government would keep the existing areas, and would elect District Councils, which might be composed of the same men as the present Vestries. His hon. Friend had proposed to the Local Government Board that there should be a Crown Commission, something like a Railway Commission, to have certain powers over Vestries, and to keep them up to their work. This alone would be a greater interference with them, and a greater step in the direction of centralization than anything that the Government had proposed. The hon. Member had spoken as though he were satisfied with the existing government of London; but as he had proposed a scheme which would revolutionize the existing Bodies, he might be assumed not to be well satisfied with them. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no desire to ridicule Vestries; he was a vestryman himself, and had been so for years; and, as far as his other duties permitted, he attended the Vestry meetings and took part in their deliberations. He would ask his hon. Friend whether he was satisfied with the composition of the Local Bodies in his own borough? He presumed not, because the hon.
    70
    Member wished to establish a borough of Finsbury. But the effect of the hon. Member's speech and vote would be to back up those Bodies, and to enable them for an indefinite time to mismanage the affairs of a portion of the Metropolis. The hon. Member knew the composition of the Clerkenwell Vestry well enough, and that the Sanitary Committee of Clerkenwell had been turned out by the Vestry, because Chairman after Chairman of that Committee had reported in favour of sanitary reforms in that parish, which had been year after year vetoed by the Vestry, the majority of the members of which were interested in the property it was proposed to deal with. Some of the most interested of those vestrymen were returned at the head of the poll by 13 votes. Some who had held the Chairmanship of the Sanitary Committee in years past had testified to the harm done by the action of the majority of the Vestry. The Sanitary Committee had now been repressed, and there was no one left to protest against the mismanagement of the affairs of the parish. Was the hon. Member acquainted with the fact that, some years ago, the beadle of one of the parishes of his borough had made £12,000 in consequence of knowing what street improvements were about to be carried out, and that he had managed to get himself elected to the Metropolitan Board of Works, from which he was expelled with ignominy? Vestrymen had been fined over and over again, not only for the breach of sanitary laws, but for adulterations and other offences. His hon. Friend knew the amount of property in his own district which was held by leading vestrymen which was a disgrace and a danger to the whole town. The hon. Member knew of the jobbery which prevailed in some of the Vestries with regard to surveys, paving, and other matters, and of the sums of money made by contractors and dishonest men. Knowing all this, his hon. Friend could not contend that the government of London was in a satisfactory state. The Home Secretary had spoken of some parishes as constituting a danger to the whole of the Metropolis, and on his own official responsibility he endorsed that view completely. He maintained that the sanitary condition of the parish of Clerkenwell rendered that district a

    71
    danger and a disgrace to the whole of the Metropolis, and that the Vestry which allowed it to remain in that condition was unfit to exercise the powers entrusted to them. Medical officers of health had testified that they had much difficulty in performing their duties when so many of those who employed them were directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of these duties. He might on this matter quote words from Hamlet about "a mildewed ear blasting his wholesome brother." Unsanitary districts were peculiarly liable to be attacked by epidemic diseases, which would necessarily spread from them to other parishes which were better governed. The hon. Member had asked why the Government did not propose to make the Metropolitan Asylums Board the sanitary authority for the whole Metropolis. But it must be remembered that the Metropolitan Asylums Board was a body elected by Guardians, and was a wholly separate and distinct Board. It was a Poor Law Board; but, because it went over all London, it was said—"Take it for a purpose it was not intended for, and make it act for all London." Was it not, he asked, better to form a new body, whose natural duty it would be to do that which it was not the duty of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to do, and one that should be equally worthy of the larger duties they would have to discharge? The noble Lord the Member for Westminster (Lord Algernon Percy) said that this Bill would make no new departure as to attendance at Vestry elections. That was one of the most amazing statements he had heard in the course of this debate. Could anyone suppose that, if this Bill became law, members of Vestries would be elected by two votes? If the noble Lord believed that he would believe anything. He did not wish the House to think he had picked out the parish of Clerkenwell as the only instance in favour of the Bill; he would take another parish, that of St. Luke's. The Governing Body of that parish, which contained some of the worst districts in London, had written to him last November to say that no areas at present existed in that parish to which the Act of the hon. Member for Finsbury would apply; but the hon. Member himself knew that there were extensive areas in that parish to which his Act would apply. Then,
    72
    again, the Governing Bodies of the parishes of St. Pancras and of Clerkenwell had refused to listen to the proposals of the Local Government Board for making sanitary improvements in their districts. It was an undoubted fact that Vestries and District Boards were less liable to financial control and audit than any bodies which existed. Any conceivable sums might be charged for gourmandizing of the worst description, and large sums were so charged in Clerkenwell, and there was no power to disallow these sums which the ratepayers had to pay. His hon. Friend seemed to agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that the Metropolis was less heavily rated now than it might be under the proposed scheme. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets stated that the Metropolis was less heavily rated than Provincial towns; but it ought to be borne in mind that that which was included in rates varied in almost every place. Before they could establish any criterion of comparative rating in London and the great Provincial towns they must ascertain what was included in the rates. For example, the rates of Liverpool included water. Then, again, it should be remembered that in London the rates were greatly affected by the fact that London was assessed higher than any other town in the Kingdom. It was assessed nearly 10 per cent higher than most Provincial towns, and 20 per cent higher than some Provincial towns. This, of course, affected the rates, and therefore the comparisons were necessarily fallacious. He had tried to verify the figures given last night by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but had been unable to do so. It was worthy of remark, however, that all the boroughs mentioned by the hon. Member were situate in more than one Poor Law Union. The hon. Member for Finsbury had referred to the healthiness of London, and compared it with Paris, which was, he said, less healthy; but surely his hon. Friend must be aware that for the purposes of health generally Paris was governed by a Prefect of Police, who was nominated by the French Government, and who gave directions to the 20 maires of the different districts. His hon. Friend likewise spoke of New York; but he knew that his statement was entirely incorrect as to the changes

    73
    which had been made. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had told them that London was the healthiest City in the world of its population. Well, as there was no other City in the world of its population that was a very easy statement to make. If they looked at the death-rate a very fair test as to the effect of the government of London on the health of London was to be found by comparing the decreased rate of mortality in London as against the decrease in the country generally. They must, of course, take the relative rates and the relative decrease. In every part of England and Wales there had been a steady and a gratifying decrease of mortality since the passing of the Sanitary Acts of modern times. In the last 10 years the mean death-rate in London had decreased 1·1 in the 1,000. In the 19 great towns of England, the death-rate had during the same period decreased to the extent of 5·1, being a decrease of 4 per 1,000 in the Provincial towns more than in London.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the decrease is from?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In London the decrease has been from 22·1 to 21 per 1,000.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE: And in the other towns?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The decrease has been from 27·7 to 22 per 1,000.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY: That is a very fallacious test.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, doubtless, the death-rate was not a very accurate test, because it was necessary to correct it, inasmuch, for instance, as a great many London deaths occurred out of London. Unless the Registrar General's figures were corrected by allowing for those deaths any test of the London death-rate must be altogether fallacious. The death-rate in London was still a great deal higher than it ought to be, and he trusted they would see the time when it would be greatly reduced—say, to two-thirds of its present rate. But the decrease which had actually taken place in London appeared to be connected with the operations of the Metropolitan Board of Works in constructing a system of sewers. Prior to the action of that Board the death-rate of London had been nearly stationary
    74
    for a great many years at 24 or 24½ per 1,000; but after the partial establishment of the sewer system it fell to 22, and after its complete establishment to a little over 21. This result, he thought, was owing to the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was so well presided over by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite; and he regarded it as a proof that the administration of London by a united Body would be a good thing. At present they had, as regarded sewage, one authority; but as regarded infectious diseases, there were no fewer than 70 authorities in London, while there were 39 authorities which had power in reference to the regulations for tenement houses. Of those 39 some 15 or 20 were now doing their duty. Formerly, only two did their duty. Out of the 39 about 29 were indisposed to do their duty, and some five were absolutely refusing in the strongest terms to do it. That was a specimen of the present system of government of London. The hon. Member had said that there were 27 great services for which London was united at the present moment under the Metropolitan Board; but he should have been glad if his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, who desired to destroy that unity, had given the House some notion as to what the services were which he would wish to break up among the 10 different Municipalities. With regard to gas and water in London, there was no authority except Parliament which could be called into play whenever anything had to be done. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets stated last night that the vast majority of those who were interested in the present system of local government in London opposed this Bill. He entirely denied that statement. The hon. Member for Finsbury asked them to pronounce for separate Municipalities; but the hon. Member was not yet prepared for that plan, because he stated that, though there were now 10 Metropolitan boroughs, there might shortly be 20; and, therefore, he wished them to wait for a Redistribution Bill, which could have no conceivable connection with the government of London. The ten boroughs had no root—no ancient life. He admitted the case of the City, and he admitted that as regarded the borough of Westminster there was something, though very little, to be said. As

    75
    regarded the other communities of the Metropolis, however, they were the modern creation of that House; and yet his hon. Friend asked them either to take these boroughs and destroy the unity which now existed, or else to wait until other new boroughs should be created by that House. On the contrary, he asked the House to approve the principle of this Bill, which was, in his opinion, the most decentralizing measure that had been seen in modern times.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. R. N. Fowler,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.

    CRIMINAL LUNATICS [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the detention of Criminal Lunatics in, and of removing Pauper Lunatics to, an asylum, and of contributions towards the cost of maintenance, &c. of discharged Criminal Lunatics under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Criminal Lunatics.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT [COST OF CERTIFICATE].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the cost of the certificate of the death of any registered Medical Practitioner, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the consolidation and amendment of the Law relating to Medical Practitioners.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (SPECIAL REPORT).
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Criminal Lunatics Bill, viz.: Mr. Buszard, Mr. Edward Clarke, Dr. Commins, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Inderwick, Mr. James W. Lowther (Rutland), Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Mr. Marum, Mr. Mellor, Mr. John Morley, Mr.
  76
  Ernest Noel, Mr. Shield, Mr. Waddy, and Sir John Eardley Wilmot.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  The House suspended its Sitting at ten minutes before Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  MINING INDUSTRY.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. BURT, in rising to call attention to the subject of accidents in mines; and to move a Resolution thereon, said, that it was not necessary that he should dwell upon the importance of the mining industry of the United Kingdom; since whether the House looked at the very large number of persons employed in mining—namely, more than 560,000 men and boys, or at the value of the material they produced, the importance of the industry in itself, or on account of the many other large trades that were more or less dependent upon it, he thought they might say it stood at the very head of the great industries of the country. If we stopped our coal supplies, we should stop at the same time nearly every other industry, for our manufacturing establishments were in a large measure dependent upon the production of coal. Now, this mining industry was carried on at a very great sacrifice of life and limb. There was no authentic and complete Return dating further back than 1851; but from that time to the present there had been more than 35,000 lives lost in our coal mines alone, to say nothing of fatalities in connection with metalliferous and other mines. During the last 10 years the total loss of life in coal and metalliferous mines was 12,170, or an average per annum of 1,217. Last year the number was 1,140. These figures told a very sad and terrible tale. Perhaps in comparison with one or two other industries, such as those of the seamen and the railway employés, mining entailed a somewhat less loss of life, considering the number of persons employed. But in one respect he thought

  77
  mining occupied a very sad pre-eminence, and that was in the number of non-fatal and minor accidents. He was very much surprised when he examined into this part of the question a few years ago. He remembered that the late Mr. Macdonald, who did good service on matters of this kind, both in the House and out of it, estimated, in 1878, that the number of persons injured in mines was about 5,000 per annum. That was considered a somewhat extravagant estimate; but he (Mr. Burt) was quite satisfied that it was very considerably under the mark. There was no complete record; but, from the facts that were obtainable, there could not be the slightest doubt that the number really very considerably exceeded 5,000 a-year. There was a certain amount of authentic information furnished by the Reports of the Miners' Relief Funds, the rules of which provided for relief of men who were laid off work by injury for more than a week. In connection with one Society alone—the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Permanent Relief Fund—no fewer than 14,929 persons received payments on account of shorter or longer periods of injury. That was out of a total of 81,600 members in that Society. There were other Societies in Cheshire, Lancashire, and elsewhere; and if the whole of these Societies were taken together, they found that last year the total number of persons injured was 34,579 out of a total number of 224,000 members. Now, if the ratio of injuries was the same for the whole mining population, that would give a grand total of more than 86,000 persons who were injured every year while following their employment in the mines of the country. It was perfectly true that many of those accidents, fortunately, were not very serious; but they were sufficiently serious to throw the men out of employment, and to deprive them of their ordinary source of income for weeks; and no inconsiderable number of them, he was sorry to say—certainly some hundreds—were permanently injured, and would never more be fit to earn their support by their usual labour. These certainly were some melancholy facts. At the same time, he must admit that a great deal had been done by Parliament in the past. Very valuable Acts of Parliament had been passed in the interest of the miners. Those Acts had had, on
  78
  the whole, a very beneficial effect; and, bad as the position was at the present time, it was only fair to admit—and he admitted it with great pleasure and satisfaction—that whether they took into consideration the number of persons employed or the quantity of minerals raised, there had been from 1851 to the present time, year after year, a constant and steady diminution in the loss of life. That ought to encourage Parliament to go forward in the direction of inspection and improved management of mines. With regard to inspection, there had been a gradual development. In 1851 there were only three or four Inspectors employed. Then the number was increased to six or seven, and gradually it continued to increase until, at the present time, there were 14 Chief and 12 Assistant Inspectors in connection with coal and ironstone mines. The theory of inspection had also improved and developed. For a considerable time the position held by the Inspectors themselves was that they should never visit a mine unless an accident had occurred, or unless they were specially sent for. That was not only the view of the Inspectors, but also of the Home Office some years ago. The late Sir George Grey, for whose memory he cherished great respect, gave evidence before a Committee of the House in 1857, and he accepted that view as the view of the Home Office. He (Mr. Burt) was very glad to find that latterly that view had been repudiated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), when Home Secretary, issued instructions to the Inspectors telling them that they were to go to mines whenever requested; that they were to accept even anonymous communications; that they were to go unexpectedly, and were to keep a regular record of each visit they made. That was certainly a very important step in the right direction. It altered the whole theory of inspection. But there was no corresponding increase—in fact, there was no increase whatever—in the number of Inspectors in order to make the inspection more effective. He wished to say that he made no complaint whatever against the Inspectors. He knew many of them. Those with whom he was acquainted performed their duty with great intelligence and with great ability; and he believed, speaking of the Inspectors

  79
  as a body, that they would bear comparison with any other body of public servants in the zeal and earnestness with which they performed their important duties. But he said that when the House took into consideration the great number of mines, their areas, and ramifications; when they took into account the enormously increasing amount of clerical work that was constantly devolving upon the Inspectors; when, also, they considered the very large development of the mining interest during the last few years, all these facts together showed the necessity for a considerable increase in the number of Inspectors. In fact, with the present staff of Inspectors, he did not hesitate to say that it was physically impossible that there should be any real and thorough inspection of mines. Very few hon. Members had any notion of the immense area of some of these mines. A terrible explosion occurred some time ago at Seaham Colliery. The Home Secretary paid a visit to the scene of the disaster, and it was a very great satisfaction to the miners, and widows, and to all connected with the colliery, that the right hon. Gentleman showed such personal interest in the matter. The main airways in that colliery extended over more than 12 miles, and that was not at all exceptional. He knew mines in Northumberland, and in Durham also, where the roadways extended over 40 or 50 miles. To inspect a mine of that kind required four, five, or six days, and it was no child's play to have to go through those narrow and intricate passages, and to examine them as they ought to be examined, to ascertain whether everything was right. The mines were also increasing in depth. The hon. Member for North Durham (Sir George Elliot), who spoke on the subject in 1878, declared that they were gradually getting into more dangerous "zones" in the working of these mines. That fact alone showed the necessity for stricter supervision. Even assuming, which he did not admit, that the inspection of mines was satisfactory in 1871–3, it must be remembered that since that time they had developed by fully one-third. The output had gone up more than 40,000,000 tons a-year since then; and that fact alone seemed to make out a good case for increased inspection. In his Motion he raised no
  80
  question as to the status or standard of qualification of Inspectors. The working miners, as the Home Secretary was very well aware, would very much like to see a certain proportion of men advanced from the ranks of labour to act as Inspectors. The only thing he insisted upon, and the only sound principle that would bear examination in or out of the House, was that a sufficient number of thoroughly capable and efficient men should be appointed. He thought it would be advantageous to have men from the ranks if suitable men could be obtained; and he had no doubt that the increased education and mental improvement that were manifesting themselves on all hands among the miners — their progress in scientific questions, their knowledge of mineralogy, and other matters relating to mining—all that led him to think that the spirit of exclusiveness which had for so long characterized the service might, to some extent, be broken through, and they might have men from the ranks of labour appointed as Sub or Assistant Inspector of Mines. He felt all the more confident in approaching the Home Secretary on the subject, because he could not help remembering that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had already taken a very important step in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman had already broken through the old traditions and conventionalities of the Home Office, and had appointed as Inspectors of Factories men who came from the ranks of labour. No doubt objections would be raised to this Motion. The increased cost would, of course, be mentioned. He was one of those who advocated economy; but every now and then he had to come forward and ask for increased expenditure in certain directions. He was well aware, as the Scotch said, that "many a mickle makes a muckle," and that added very much to the expenditure. But if they took into consideration the object aimed at—the saving of human life—such an increase of expenditure would be amply justified, and the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that the smallest military expedition would swallow up more than would pay the salaries of these extra Inspectors for all time. Doubtless, it would also be said that this step would lessen the responsibility of mineowners. He never

  81
  met a mineowner but that objection was used, and in nine times out of ten it was a sham objection. He had never found that a mineowner or other employer of labour had really such a strong desire for responsibility. Their chief objection to the Employers' Liability Act was that it overwhelmed them with responsibility; so that he submitted that there must be some other objection than that, so far as the mineowners were concerned. But he admitted that it might be possible to extend the inspection so far as to lessen the responsibility of individual owners, and it would be a very great evil to extend it so far. The Home Secretary, however, would be the first to admit that we were a considerable distance from even approaching that point so far as mines' inspection was concerned. It only remained for him now to thank the House for the kind attention with which they had heard him. He hoped he had presented his case fairly and temperately, although he had not stated it so fully as he should have done under other circumstances. He had endeavoured to point out the great sacrifice of human life. He had admitted that that sacrifice was fortunately diminishing. The House of Commons and the country were certainly not indifferent to the lives of the mining population. Whenever a terrible explosion or other calamity occurred the hearts of the people of all classes were filled with sympathy; and he had no doubt that the House of Commons, and no Member of the House more than the present Home Secretary, would be desirous of doing all that could be done by legislative enactments and by scientific appliances, supplemented, as he hoped and believed these would be, by increased care and experience on the part of the mineowners and workmen, to diminish, as far as possible, the terrible record of the sacrifice of human life in the working of our mines. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. C. JAMESsaid, he begged to second the Resolution. The greater number of his constituents were working colliers, and he could say there was no class so thoroughly outspoken and independent. When they came together at a meeting they never left you in doubt as to what was in their minds. There was no question about which they were so sore as this question of the inspection
  82
  of mines. They never complained of the character of the Inspectors. He knew several Inspectors himself, and they were men of great intelligence and industry, and did their work thoroughly well. But when gentlemen were put in a position where no industry could overtake the work it was no wonder that the work failed to be done, and that was the case with the inspection of mines. Formerly, no doubt, according to the rules of the Office, the Inspector did not conceive it to be his duty to go to a colliery until after an accident. That had been lately altered; but still, if they had not improved their staff by increasing their number, what were those gentlemen to do? He wished to draw the attention of the Home Secretary and the House to what happened in the North of England, and to what occurred in the South Wales districts. There was a district in the North of England which included Northumberland, Cumberland, and North Durham. That district raised, in 1882, 16,900,000 tons of coal, and the South Wales district raised in the same year 16,500,000 tons. Anyone would suppose that, all things being equal, the death-rate in the mines in South Wales would be about the same as the death-rate in the North of England districts. What were the facts? The number of deaths in the mines in South Wales was double that in the collieries of the North of England district. In 1882 there were 73 deaths in the North of England district; but in the South Wales district there were 144. This was a serious matter. It might be said that the South Wales mines were more difficult to work than the collieries of the North of England, and that the custom with regard to timbering was different. But those circumstances alone could not and ought not to raise the death-rate in South Wales to 144. It was most important that the Inspectors should turn their attention to the subject, and do what they could to reduce that number to something which represented the normal condition of things—the 73 deaths in the North of England district. He had never seen anything to show why there should be so great a difference between the two districts with regard to the death-rate. But the matter did not rest there. He found that in the North of England nine deaths occurred in shafts; but in the South Wales district the number killed in shafts was 17. Why was that? A

  83
  shaft was a shaft all the world over. It was a hole in the ground with machinery to lift people up and let them down; and why should not a shaft in South Wales be as safe as a shaft in the North of England? He could see no reason why they should be killing 17 in the South Wales shafts, when in the North of England, where the same quantity of coal was raised, only nine were killed. Then, with regard to deaths from falls of ground in the mines, that was a matter which possibly ought to be brought prominently before the colliers themselves. Those falls, no doubt, arose in some cases from imperfect timbering; but while in the North of England the number of deaths from that cause was only 32 the number in South Wales was 66. He was sure it was not necessary to do more than mention the matter to induce the Home Secretary to look into it, and see what could be done to reduce the number of deaths in South Wales from falls of ground in pits. Then, again, he wished to call attention to the increase in the output of coal in South Wales since the year 1872. In that year there were 38,000 people employed in the South Wales pits; in 1882 the number was 54,000. The quantity of coal raised in 1872 was 10,000,000 tons; in 1882 it was 16,000,000. Was it, therefore, in accordance with common sense to ask a man who inspected pits in 1872 which raised 10,000,000 tons, to inspect pits with the same care in 1882 which raised 16,000,000 tons? The thing was simply impossible. There were 374 collieries in the South Wales district which the Inspector had to attend to. Some of those pits employed over 1,000 men underground. If the Inspector had those collieries in his office at Swansea, with all their plans, he could not get through the work of inspection, seeing that there were only 300 working days in the year, while there were 374 collieries to be looked after. With reference to the status of the men to be appointed as Inspectors, he would say that it was necessary that the work should be done properly, so as to make the miners as contented as possible, and to give them the assurance that all was being done that could be done for them. The colliers, however, would not be assured of that unless they had among them Inspectors who had worked their way through the various underground offices upwards, and who had by honesty and hard work attained to superior positions.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the great development of the mining industry of Great Britain in recent years, the number and extent of the mines, their increasing depth, and the large number of persons employed therein, this House is of opinion that the time has come when there should be an addition to the staff of inspectors of mines,"—(Mr. Burt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not wish the House to remain in doubt as to the views which the Government took on this question, which had been so admirably presented by men in every respect fitted to represent the cause of the miners. He did not think it very likely that in the House, as constituted that night, he would find it necessary to wait and listen to arguments from the other side; and, for himself, he had no disposition to argue against his hon. Friends. Besides, he had had the advantage of meeting, the other day, a large number of the men themselves, who spoke with much directness and frankness. It was not necessary to impress upon anyone holding the Office of Home Secretary the importance of this question. That the miners of England were among the most useful class of the people of this country—that they contributed most directly to its wealth and prosperity—were matters of common knowledge. That they were exposed to many risks was a fact of which no one was more aware than himself. The death of an entombed miner was probably one of the most fearful that the human mind could contemplate. There were days, no doubt, when the matter was regarded from a laissez-faire point of view; but it was not necessary to argue that aspect of the question now. Parliament long ago decided that some protection was due to men engaged in coal mines. The miners had sent to that House a spokesman who was always heard with respect. Whatever questions might be neglected, and whatever difficulties there might be in making a House at 9 o'clock, those difficulties had not been experienced to-night on account, in the first instance, of the importance of the matter which the House had to consider; and, in the second degree, on account of the respect entertained by

  85
  the House for the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). The facts which the hon. Gentleman had laid before the House, with much earnestness and moderation, were sufficiently graphic. He had told them of the thousands of men whose lives were lost, and whose prospects were damaged by accidents which did not actually destroy their lives. His hon. Friend had referred to the functions of the Inspectors and of the Home Office. He could most sincerely and frankly say that nobody was more fully aware than he was, or deplored the circumstance more deeply, that among the multitudinous and miscellaneous duties of his Office he should not be able to devote more time to this great and important subject, which of itself might well occupy the whole of the time of any official. But, at all events, in the administration of these questions, he had always desired to take the rigorous view of the matter; and when a doubtful question arose he had always urged the Inspectors to take that course which was most likely to secure safety. With reference to closed lamps in mines, he might point out that mines differed immensely in their character. Some mines were much more dangerous than others in consequence of defective ventilation, and some mines were more fiery than others. As he had already suggested to a deputation of miners from South Wales, inspection was of very little use unless the precautions recommended by the Inspectors were accepted and enforced by the miners themselves. Only a few months ago he received from an Inspector a recommendation that the use of closed lamps should be enforced in a mine in South Wales. He did not wish to mention the name of the mine; but he might state that he received the most vehement remonstrances against the order which issued from the Home Office that closed lamps would be insisted upon in this mine. He received communications on the subject from hon. Members who were connected with the district, and a deputation from the miners themselves waited upon him to protest against the hardship and injustice of that precaution, which had been taken for securing the safety of human life. The miners said it placed them at a disadvantage, and caused inconvenience, and they wished him to rescind the regulation; but his answer to them was that
  86
  he could not assume such a responsibility when it was reported to be necessary for the safety of human life. He thought his hon. Friend had amply made out his case with regard to the number of Inspectors. In consequence of the great consumption of coal in this country mines were going deeper and deeper, and consequently they became more difficult to manage. Since the great famine, as it was called, of iron and coal in 1873, there had been an immense extension of the works of the mines. His hon. Friend had referred to one of the most difficult practical questions of administration that could possibly arise. It was admitted that a certain amount of inspection was necessary in order for security; but it was quite impossible for the Government to undertake such an extensive constant inspection as would be, in itself, a guarantee of security. If they were to attempt to do so, then would really arise what his hon. Friend deprecated—the responsibility of the owners and managers of mines would be destroyed. A statutory regulation which he had stringently enforced required that a visitation of the mine should be made before the men went down. This was one of the greatest securities, and he could not relieve the owners and managers of mines from the responsibility which that regulation entailed. If a mine were fiery, it might become dangerous in an hour. The stroke of a pick might open a vein from which the gas issued, and no inspection could guarantee that mine from a danger which might spring up in a moment. Therefore, it would be simply misleading the House and the miners if he were to represent that the Government could undertake the task of appointing such a staff of Inspectors as would supersede the responsibility of a daily and weekly management of the mine. If that were to be done, they would require to have a Government official attached to each mine in the country, and he was sure his hon. Friend did not propose that. But apart from that, useful functions could be performed by the Government Inspector. First, his visiting the mine and ascertaining the cause of accidents, and arranging for their prevention in future, and by occasional inspection, would operate not only beneficially on the mine visited, but on others which might be visited at any

  87
  time without notice. That seemed to be the reasonable limit of what the Government could be expected to do in such a matter as this. If the number of Inspectors 10 years ago to perform such duties was adequate, then it could not be adequate now, and, therefore, he accepted the proposition of his hon. Friend; but he would not expect him at that moment, in a matter of such consequence, which required to be looked at from every point of view, to give any definite pledge upon the subject. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the observations made to the deputation of miners and to the House, that he was with him on this question. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman said, this would lead to increased pay; but extravagance consisted in what the money was spent for. With regard to the class of men who were to be employed, he must also request his hon. Friend not to expect him to give any definite pledges. He had already made, with great success, the experiment of introducing into the factories' inspection men of the class who were interested in the inspection. When he commenced that practice, there was a great deal of noise and sound about it. It would be a great evil to introduce class considerations in these appointments—to appoint Inspectors who were adverse either to employers or to workmen. It would be introducing class distinctions to determine that any employment of this character should be confined to a particular class exclusive of the rest; this would be the worst of all class distinctions. It was most desirable to give the miners confidence in the inspection, to let them feel that the Inspectors were chosen, not because they belonged to one class or another, but because they were thoroughly conversant with the subject. Another feeling which had influenced him in making the experiment he had was that the industrial classes of the country, who formed the great majority of the community, should feel that they had their share in the Civil Service of the country. Nothing could be more beneficial in the progress of modern civilization than the breaking down of the walls of partition which had separated classes. Differences which had existed between the higher and the middle classes had been very much removed within our lifetime. The educational
  88
  disadvantages of the weekly wage class were gradually disappearing, and, as the obstacle of imperfect education was removed, he hoped there would be greater interchange and communion between all classes of the community. It would be well to proceed cautiously upon this principle, for a mistake would be injurious to all concerned. This was a statement of the case from the practical point of view, from which he had had to consider it. His hon. Friend would feel that before practical effect could be given to any new views on the subject other Departments of the Government would have to be consulted. As representing the Government in the interests of this large class of men, he hoped the statement he had made would be considered satisfactory to the hon. Member who had introduced the subject, and that he would not press the Motion further at present.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that the hon. Member for Morpeth might well be satisfied with what had fallen from the Home Secretary, who, as he understood, practically accepted the Motion, and accepted it unreservedly, simply saying that he required due time to consider how it could best be carried out. Personally, he was entirely satisfied with what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was a matter he had had under his consideration from the time he entered the House. There could be no doubt on one point, and that was that responsibility must rest upon the mineowners. It would be a dangerous thing to introduce anything which relieved the mine-owner from responsibility. But there was no reason to fear that by increasing the inspectorate, responsibility would be taken off the shoulders of owners. The owner who conducted his mine in a proper manner did not fear inspection; on the contrary, he always welcomed it; because the more information an owner obtained the better was he able to maintain the efficiency of the management. If mines were conducted in an improper or niggardly manner, it was well that they should be under constant inspection. It was impossible to overrate the dangers which might result from niggardliness. If anything could be done to prevent danger, it was the bounden duty of owners to do it. It was inevitable that there should be risk and

  89
  danger in the business, as much so as in the manufacture of gunpowder or fireworks; but this risk ought to be reduced to a minimum. As to the loss of life in South Wales, it was just possible that the statistics that had been quoted might be explained by a single accident in which a large number of men were concerned. As to falls from the roof, it might be that the system of timbering in the North, where each man timbered for himself, was the better system; but men did not like to change their habits; and in South Wales there was a strong feeling against the double-shift system which prevailed in the North of England. The loss that occurred from a single accident outweighed any advantage to be gained from unduly stinting expense; and it was, therefore, the first interest of the owner to prevent accident. The very best agent he ever had was a man who rose from the ranks, who began as a door boy; and if he wanted to provide for the proper management of a colliery he should like to have a man of that class as his most important underground manager rather than a young gentleman brought up in a kid-glove school and taught high engineering. The Inspectors they had had hitherto were men of a most excellent and praiseworthy class, who had done their duty in the most self-sacrificing manner, and had been the first to be ready to risk their lives whenever a terrible explosion had occurred in a mine. At the same time, he desired to see them aided by men who had been practically and thoroughly acquainted with the working of mines from their boyhood. In conclusion, he believed that the Motion of the hon. Member for Morpeth had done great good, and they must look to the Home Secretary to carry out the promise he had made that night.
  MR. HARRISsaid, he thought it was only right that the side of the House on which he sat should contribute something to this interesting debate before it closed. He had been much interested in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who introduced this Resolution to the House; and he thought that he had put forward the claims of those whom he most particularly represented—namely, the colliers and miners, in a most able and convincing manner. He was also much
  90
  satisfied with the assurance which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had given. There was one passage in the Home Secretary's speech to which he meant to take exception more by way of giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity of making an explanation than by way of finding fault. The right hon. and learned Gentleman at the commencement of his speech used these words—"I do not think it necessary to listen to arguments from the other side before I rise, &c." Now, he felt sure that he knew the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to infer that this side of the House was likely to be inimical to the proposals of the hon. Member for Morpeth, although his words might give that impression.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he had no intention of indicating anything of a Party nature.
  MR. HARRIS, continuing, said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would doubtless be the more obliged to him (Mr. Harris) for having given him the opportunity of explaining himself. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The fact seemed to be very apparent that from every part of the House the hon. Gentleman would find support, and it was more for the purpose of giving him this assurance than with the object of making a speech he had risen. The ground had been pretty well covered by previous speakers, and he was glad to agree with them in thinking that a certain number of the Inspectors of Mines should be men who had raised themselves from the ranks, men who knew where the shoe pinched, and who could put their hands on the right place. If to these were added men of the class of mine and colliery managers—and there must be many such now seeking employment owing to the depression of trado—these would be a suitable counterpoise from the coalowners' side, who would oppose any extravagant recommendations which they thought unnecessary. The real object was to save life. Some persons might argue that the wages paid were higher than in many other industries, and that the high wages compensated the men for the risk; but that was no reason why the risk should not be minimised. It must answer the purpose of the employers as well as of the colliers to make the risk of life as small as possible,

  91
  because if wages were relatively higher on account of the risks, when the risks were removed or reduced the same difference was not likely to continue, and the industry would draw to itself more of the surplus labour from other centres. He had collected statistics of the earnings of the men in a large steam coal colliery in the North of England, and he found they were as follow:—In 1875 the men earned 8s. 6d. per diem; in 1876, 7s. 3d.; in 1877, 6s. 6d.; in 1878, 5s. 7d.; in 1881, 5s.; and at the present time they were earning about 5s., though a year or so since there had been a small advance. For the nature of the work, he considered 5s. a-day was a very low wage, and seeing, moreover, that men could not be expected to work underground for six days in the week, it was quite evident that no part of the cost of extra inspection must come from the men themselves; but, as he had before said, he thought the employers would gain as much in the end as they might lose at present by any small claim upon them to defray the cost of the extra supervision proposed. He presumed the Government did not mean to make it an Imperial charge. It was not that he grudged the expense; but he thought there were other industries which would be apt to claim similar subventions. Having made these few remarks, he would not trespass any further on the time of the House.
  MR. CAINE, as a mineowner himself, also expressed the satisfaction with which he had heard all that the Home Secretary had said on that question that evening. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that as far as regarded metalliferous mines—and he was not personally entitled to speak in respect to collieries—he should be very glad if they had a much larger amount of inspection than they now had. He was certain, from his experience, that the inspection at present was very inefficient, and not sufficient to meet the requirements of the country. The Home Secretary made use of a phrase in which he agreed—namely, that the tendency of democracy was towards the increased expenditure of money; but he thought it was also towards economy in the expenditure; because economy, after all, was not a parsimonious but a wise expenditure, and he would press upon the Home Secretary that the Treasury
  92
  should give a larger grant to provide an increased staff of Inspectors. The abolition of the Royal Yachts and other economies which he could mention would provide for the expense that would be entailed.
  MR. BROADHURSTthanked the Home Secretary for the way in which he had met the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth. The encouragement offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give very great and wide-spread satisfaction, not only among the miners of the United Kingdom, but also among the other trades of the country generally. There were other departments of industry which required some further attention; but they must take their turn among the matters calling for the consideration of the Government. Reference had been made, in connection with the necessity for the miner himself exercising caution, to a case in which certain miners in South Wales had objected to have closed lamps imposed on them. But it might be said, in extenuation of the view taken by the men, that in that particular district to work with closed lamps meant a considerable reduction in their weekly earnings; and that was the reason why they objected to the new regulations. It was not that they were unwilling to observe the best modes of insuring safety, but because the mode of safety suggested involved a reduction of their weekly earnings. With respect to any risk of over-inspection, there was, he thought, no danger now of their reaching such a degree of inspection as would interfere with the freedom of industry; while, as to the argument about increased expenditure, the people of this country were all for true economy; but did anyone believe that that was either a wise or a true economy which resulted in the sacrifice of health or of human life? He would not presume to advise his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth as to the course which he should pursue; but after the speech of the Home Secretary, perhaps he would not deem it necessary to press his Motion any further.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he sympathized so heartily with the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth that he should have been quite prepared to second his Motion that evening, had he not been prevented by a prior engagement from being present at the earlier

  93
  part of that discussion. There were one or two points which he wished to refer to. He was anxious that in no system of inspection should the weight of responsibility be taken off the shoulders of the conductors of mines. Most of the mines in this country were in the hands of very responsible owners; and the men employed, or who ought to be employed, to conduct them should be those who were well calculated to carry out those regulations, which, so far as human foresight could devise, were necessary for the safety of the men.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE, resuming, said, another point which he was anxious to see carried out in the inspection of mines was that the responsibility should not be taken off the men themselves. There was an important clause in the Mines Inspection Act which gave the men the power to examine any mine at anytime—a power which he should be glad to see the men put more frequently in force. It was on the intelligence of the men themselves that they should rely in future for the prevention of those mining disasters, rather than on any system of Government inspection. At the same time, inspection was a necessity, and he was glad to think that out of the ranks of the men themselves could be found those whose practical knowledge and ability fitted them to discharge all the duties of Sub-Inspectors.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that instead of expending a great deal of money on the Inspectors, who, no doubt, did their work remarkably well, but who were more theoretical than practical men, some plan should be devised of paying one or two men in each colliery to institute a weekly or monthly inspection. If this system was adopted, he believed a great deal of money could be saved to the country, and much more efficiency would be attained in inspection than at present existed. The causes of accidents in mines were threefold—gas explosion, falling of the roof, and disobedience to orders. Disobedience to orders was one of the great evils which mineowners had to contend against. No doubt, the better class of workmen in the collieries set themselves against the men who broke the rules; but, having
  94
  no power to interfere, they could not prevent the disobedience. If they had a few selected men acting under an Inspector, and who had some power to interfere in the case of disobedience to the rules, he believed a great many accidents in mines could be prevented.
  MR. SALTsaid, the object of the proposal submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Morpeth must commend itself to every Member of the House irrespective of Party. With reference to the extension of powers of inspection, the House must always bear in mind that inspection alone could never prevent accidents. Inspection might do a great deal in ascertaining the probable causes to which accidents were due, and in indicating how accidents might be prevented; but accidents could not be prevented by an extended system of inspection. With regard to the character of the inspection, he desired to point out that in all cases where Inspectors were employed by the State, especially with regard to this particular class of work, they should not be hostile critics either of the owner or of the men. They ought to be the friends of the employer and the employed; and the real value of a good Inspector was, in the first place, in this—that he extracted the best information on the subject he had to deal with; and, secondly, that he could give advice. It was of the greatest importance, he believed, that the Inspectors who were appointed should be men who were capable from their experience, from their knowledge, from their character, and other considerations, to give advice and help to the employer and also to the men themselves. He trusted that, in making fresh appointments, the Home Secretary would be careful to select such men.
  MR. BURTsaid, the statement of the Home Secretary could not have been more satisfactory; and he was bound also to express satisfaction with the spirit in which the discussion had been carried on. He felt confident the right hon. and learned Gentleman would lose no time in giving practical effect to the proposal; and he would, therefore, ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MACFARLANErose to call attention to the advance of Russia in Central Asia; and to move—
    "That the recent advance of Russia to Mery and Sarrahks endangers Herat, the integrity and independence of Afghanistan, and is deserving of the most serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (163); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (164); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (165); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14)* (166); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15)* (167); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* (161); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 7)* (162); Indian Marine* (170); Post Office Protection (172); Educational Endowments (Ireland) (173).
Committee—Report—Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment* (135).
Report—Improvement of Lands (Ecclesiastical Benefices)* (131).
Third Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (151); Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order* (148); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* (149); Newcastle Chapter* (130), and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKgave Notice that when the noble Duke opposite asked Her Majesty's Government the Question which he understood he intended to put to them—namely, Whether they would undertake to introduce a Bill for the redistribution of seats at the first opportunity, and use their best endeavours so that it might come into operation before another General Election? he would ask a further Question of the Government to the following effect:—Whether, if Her Majesty's Government did undertake to introduce a Bill for the redistribution of seats on the first opportunity, it would not be open to them to abandon such Bill if important Amendments were inserted in the other House, or for any other reason, and to force an Election (supposing the Representation of the People Bill were passed this Session) under the extended franchise without any scheme for the redistribution of seats?

EGYPT (TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE)—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.—EXPLANATION.
EARL GRANVILLE: I have to apologize for troubling the House again with respect to the anecdote of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) on Tuesday last; but having rashly promised your Lordships that I would make further inquiries I think it right to mention the result. The noble Marquess said—
"I am told, on very good authority, that the two Gentlemen whose duty it is to marshal the forces of the Government were, during that division, at the door of the Lobby into which the Government and the Opposition went, and that, when asked by Liberal Members which way they were to go, instead of replying with enthusiasm, as might be expected, 'Of course, you are to follow Mr. Gladstone,' they immediately replied, 'The bulk of the Party is going the other way.'"—(3 Hansard, [289] 1777.)
Last night the noble Marquess said that he referred not to Lord. Richard Grosvenor and Lord Kensington, but to Mr. Duff.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: And Mr. Cotes.
EARL GRANVILLE: I have not the slightest objection to add Mr. Cotes. I stated yesterday that both Lord Kensington and Lord Richard Grosvenor had entirely denied the statement as far as they were concerned. I have now to say that Mr. Duff has written to me as follows:—
"When the Division took place on Monday I was sitting on the Cross Bench by the door, and was obliged to remain there on account of the rush of Liberal Members into the 'No' Lobby. No one appealed to me as to how they should vote; but several Members said in a laughing way—'You had better come with us.' I replied—'The Government go the other way.' From where I was sitting the spontaneous movement of the Party into the 'No' Lobby was so obvious that it would have been useless to interfere either way, and I never attempted to do so."
The noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough) has reminded me of Mr. Cotes; but Mr. Cotes says that he knows nothing of the matter, and that it is entirely without foundation so far as he is concerned. I have again to apologize for wasting your Lordships' time upon this subject; but I think your Lordships will concur with me in expressing a wish that this will not deter the noble Marquess for the future from enlivening our debates by well-placed anecdotes when they occur to him.

THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS—GRANADA, ST. VINCENT, TOBAGO, AND ST. LUCIA—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BALFOUR, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the islands of Grenada, St. Vincent, Tobago, and St. Lucia; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government intended to carry out any of the recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to the future government and internal administration of these islands? said, there was in the Report of the Commission ample justification for the course taken by the Government in appointing it. Those islands had been in the possession of the Crown of this country for a period of nearly 100 years. As their Lordships were aware, works were in progress for the construction of the Canal in the Isthmus of Panama, and this fact would show their Lordships that those islands were likely in the near future to become places of very much greater importance than they were at the present time. Those islands were distant from the Isthmus of Panama not more than 1,000, or, at the most, 1,200 miles. He thought there was also ample evidence in the Report to show that whatever the future intention of this country might be with respect to those islands we had not hitherto adequately discharged our obligations to the people who inhabited them. Considering the position of those islands, their fertility, and their natural resources, it was naturally to have been expected that something more would have been done for them, or, at least, that the people would have been encouraged to do something more for themselves, by the Colonial Office of this country, than seemed to have been the case. Nothing was more necessary for such countries, which depended largely upon the produce of the soil for their prosperity, than a good system of roads. He found from the Report of the Commission that the islands were very badly supplied with roads, and that their prosperity was greatly retarded in consequence of a want of complete arterial communication. In another place the Report, speaking more particularly of the Island of Grenada, pointed out that considerable sums of money had been spent on

  5
  the roads that existed; that the expenditure had not been very judicious; and that, considering the large sums of money spent on these roads during the past five years, their present condition was very disappointing. The Report also brought out very clearly the defect in the present system of administration. The first question which he wished to put to the Government was to ask what were their intentions, if they had formed any, as to carrying out the recommendations of the Report, and as to the confederation of those islands into one Colony. The Report brought out clearly that the administration was at present unnecessarily costly, and, he thought, not very efficient. This circumstance, he believed, largely arose from the fact that the administration was separate. If the islands were confederated, even if economy was not the result, a very considerable increase in efficiency would almost certainly ensue. The population of the islands was 141,000, and the sum paid in salaries and allowances to officials amounted to £50,889. St. Lucia had a population of 39,000 persons, and it spent £13,800 on salaries and allowances to officials; St. Vincent had a population of 41,000, and spent £13,000; and Grenada, with a population of £43,000, spent £17,000. The Report went on to say that if the present system of administration was continued no further economy was possible. At present, in each island, many different offices were held by the same person. For example, the Inspector of Schools and the Road Surveyor were one and the same person, and magistrates were liable to be called upon to act as Revenue officials. Any hope of reform in this matter must lie in the direction of confederating the islands, and putting the administration of the different islands under one responsible head, with the seat of the Government either at St. George's, in Grenada, or some other place that might be chosen. The size of the islands and the distances between them offered no obstacle to this proposal. The advantages of such a system were obvious. There would be a considerable saving of expenditure and a great increase in the efficiency of the administration. More capable men would be got for the discharge of the duties, while the duties themselves would be rendered more important. There would then be
  6
  a justification for the separation of those islands from the administration of the Island of Barbadoes, a separation which, as far as he could learn, was ardently desired, because the interests of the Island of Barbadoes were, in some respects, not the same as those of the other islands. This would enable the Government of the four islands and the administration of justice, police, and schools to be united. He did not think there would be any very serious opposition made to this proposal. The Report showed that on several occasions efforts to unite the islands had been made with more or less success. Since 1876 he believed public opinion had advanced in this direction, and that any opposition would be likely to die out if a comprehensive scheme were prepared by the central Government. He desired to know whether the Government could see their way to carry out any such scheme as that recommended in the Report; and, if so, whether they would adopt some plan whereby those living in the islands might be permitted to elect some gentlemen to represent them on the Legislative Council? They would not ask for a large representation; but it was strongly urged that such representation would lead to a closer watch being kept on the expenditure, and to the general advantage of the administration. He also desired to know whether it would not be possible for the Government to offer any encouragement or advice with regard to a plan whereby a loan for road-making, harbour accommodation, and water-supply might be carried out? A large part of the industry of these islands consisted in the growing of sugar, and a great deal of discussion had taken place on the subject of countervailing duties which, might diminish the evil effects of the system of bounties which existed in other countries. He did not wish to enter into that subject now; but he might say that he had never been able to understand what were the real objections to endeavouring to put some import duty upon an article like sugar, when it was made the subject of bounties in other countries which were competing with us and our dependencies. It was the object of these countries to crush out the sugar trade of this country, so as to get a monopoly. If the Colonial plantations were allowed to go out of cultivation, and the

  7
  production of sugar were given up, it would take several years before the industry could revive, and people would hesitate to embark capital in an industry which had been destroyed by the action of other Governments, while our Government stood by without assisting it. So far as the islands mentioned in the Question were concerned, the mischief, he feared, had, except in the Island of St. Lucia, already been committed. In St. Lucia there was a considerable industry in the exportation of sugar, and he should be glad to hear that something would be done to prevent the sugar industry of that island being crushed out. He made no apology for bringing this matter forward. These islands were important possessions, and when the Isthmus of Panama was open they would become still more valuable. It would be a great pity if, through neglect on the part of the Home Government, and consequent disaffection on the part of the inhabitants, these islands were to pass into the hands of any other, and, perhaps, a hostile Power.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a kindred question—the state of the islands in respect to the administration of justice. It was at once cumbrous and costly, and constructed upon the lines of the old Courts at Westminster Hall, and out of all proportion to the amount of business they had to transact. The smallness of the White population showed that the mass of business must be more suited to County Court procedure or to that of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland. Many of the islands were inferior in population to the Isle of Wight. He hoped something might be done to diminish the burden of those Courts, and to render the administration of justice more ready and expeditious.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, his noble Friend who had just sat down had gone into the general question of the judicial establishment of the West Indies, which he had said was unnecessarily cumbrous and expensive. That, however, was not covered by the Question on the Paper, and as he had not looked into the matter of late he was not then prepared to express any definite opinion upon it. As to the general tenour of the noble Earl's remarks, it was always found, whatever might be done or attempted in the way
  8
  of economy, that the administration of justice was more expensive, taking it per head of population, in a population which was divided into a number of small and scattered communities than in a population which was composed of a single community. For instance, though one Judge with £5,000 a-year might be able to satisfy the requirements of 1,000,000 of people living within a limited area, if the same population were divided into 20 or 30 small communities at a distance from one another they could not be adequately served at the same rate of expenditure. Moreover, wherever a judicial establishment was suppressed there would be a considerable amount of local prejudice and local jealousy; and if it happened by any chance that there were delays in the administration of justice, there would be a great outcry against the system, and a great demand that the community so dealt with should again have a separate judicial establishment for itself. With regard to the more specific Question raised by the noble Lord who put the Notice on the Paper, he agreed in the general tenour of his remarks as to the importance of this group of islands, though he did not go with him when he said that in consequence of the opening of the Panama Canal they would probably become of more vital importance than they were now. The difficulty which necessarily occurred in such cases as this was that they could not undertake small local works out of the Imperial funds, and that they could not put on any heavy local taxation. It might, no doubt, be said that the money required to carry out the recommendations of the noble Lord might be borrowed; but he did not think that it would be safe to go into a very large expense with borrowed money. In dealing with communities of this class it was necessary to be very cautious in the matter of loans. Their resources did not increase like those of Canada or Australia; and it was not for him to state how far the Government were prepared to go upon the Report of the Commissioners. It would be remembered that there was the group of four islands called the Windward Islands, and also a larger Island called Barbadoes; and, taken in importance as judged by population and revenue, Barbadoes was pretty nearly equal to the

  9
  other four put together. The recommendation of the Commissioners was that the four smaller islands should be separated from Barbadoes and united in themselves. On receiving that Report he thought it desirable at once to consult the Legislature of Barbadoes. They took up the idea very warmly, and they had undertaken, if this policy should be adopted, to provide an adequate salary for a separate Governor. That arrangement would, he hoped, effect considerable saving. In principle, the Government had decided upon accepting the policy of separation of the four small islands from Barbadoes; but the question of bringing the former into closer union with one another was a work more of detail, and not of so simple a character. He expected soon to have an opportunity of consulting with Sir William Robinson, and he did not think it desirable to go into a question of detail of that kind without having an opportunity of consulting with him and hearing his views upon the subject. Therefore, as far as that part of the Report was concerned, he should prefer to suspend his judgment. He had no hesitation in saying that the general policy sketched out in the Report was one which the Government considered worthy of adoption, and which they desired to carry into effect. It would undoubtedly lead to efficiency and economy. He was ready now to say that the Government were prepared to act upon the recommendations of the Commissioners if there were no insuperable local difficulty; but they could not act in such a matter without taking the opinions of the various local Legislatures concerned, and giving the people interested in the matter an opportunity of considering it.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was of opinion that what the noble Earl proposed to do was very reasonable and right. He could not lose that opportunity of bearing testimony to the successful result of the labours of the Commissioners, who had performed their task with singular care and accuracy, and had produced a very valuable Report. Their Report was valuable from the good temper and caution which they had displayed and the sound common sense which had characterized their recommendations. He wished to refer briefly to three points of very great importance
  10
  —namely, the reconstitution of the Civil Service, the question of taxation upon food, and the burning question of immigration. With regard to the Civil Service generally, he thought it essential that a reduction of expenditure should be made; but he should be sorry to see reduction made in connection with the Medical Service or the Constabulary. We owed a certain duty to the large Negro population and the other ignorant and helpless inhabitants of the islands in question. It was our duty to see that they were provided with medical assistance. Then, with regard to the Constabulary, it should be borne in mind that we had withdrawn our troops from the islands, and that the Constabulary had since then performed their duties efficiently. He could not impress too strongly upon his noble Friend opposite the duty of paying attention to the prisons of the West Indies. In many cases their condition was not satisfactory, and the Report recommended the establishment of one central prison for all the islands. That recommendation seemed to him to be extremely wise. As to the question of taxing food, of course it was generally undesirable to levy taxes of that kind. But the amount of tax which the Commissioners proposed was very moderate, and would press very lightly upon the labouring classes. It must be remembered that if a tax was not levied upon food, the whole of that class would be absolutely free from taxation. Looking at all the circumstances, he agreed with the fairness of the proposal of the Commissioners upon this subject. He came next to the question of immigration. The islands, so fertile by nature, were in many parts uncultivated. The planter threw the blame for this upon the Negro, and the Negro threw the blame upon the planter. The Negro was certainly very indisposed to work if he could possibly avoid doing so. It had been said that a Negro who occupied an acre of land in the West Indies could, in one single month, provide sufficient food for himself and his family for a whole year, besides making a certain amount of money. Eleven months of the year were, consequently, given up to idleness. The Negro population was also said to be diminishing. In these circumstances, the planters were extremely anxious to obtain labour, and were ready to submit

  11
  to considerable sacrifices in order to obtain it. There could be no doubt that immigration had been successful in British Guiana, Trinidad, and Mauritius. The desirability of further immigration was proved, and the only question to be settled was the very difficult question who should bear the expense, and in what proportion. The recommendation of the Commissioners on this point appeared to him to be a very fair one. He was of opinion that in some matters consolidation would be very much to the advantage of all the West Indian Colonies. It had been said in this country that the Crown Colony form of Government had been expensive, on the ground that the Civil Service Estimates had, during the last 10 or 15 years, nearly doubled their original amount. In reality, no blame for this increased expenditure attached to the form of Government under which it had arisen, because the Crown Colony form of Government had been the means of introducing numberless reforms, which would not have been introduced if that form of Government had not been established. If, for example, the state of the prisons and of the Constabulary was 50 per cent better than it was 10 or 15 years ago, the improvement was due to the existence of the Crown Colony form of Government. He was, therefore, anxious to refute the current fallacy that that form of Government had in these and similar matters been productive of unnecessary expenditure.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he did not recommend the expenditure of money from Imperial taxation, nor the expenditure of loans upon works which would be unproductive. He hoped, however, that the noble Earl opposite would not overlook the fact that the Commissioners had said that expenditure was fully justified to improve the harbours, the water supply, and the roads, and that the resources of the islands were sufficient to authorize a loan of £75,000 to be expended for that purpose, which, besides being a benefit to the islands, would be in itself reproductive.

INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE BIKANIR FIELD FORCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that in consequence of the revolt of the Thakor of
  12
  Bidasir and other Chiefs against the Maharajah of Bikanir the attention of the Indian Government had for some 18 months been called to the disturbed state of the districts in question, and alarm had been created on our frontier. The Indian Government at length sent out a force for the purpose of restoring order and arranging matters between the recalcitrant Chiefs and the Maharajah. A small contingent of the Maharajah's men accompanied the troops, and the surrender of one of the forts, held by 3,000 resolute men, was effected. That he took to be an exploit creditable to the force and useful to the Government of India, as it enabled them to show that there was at their command a force of military police capable of maintaining order on our frontier and within our frontier. The troops started from their base of operations on the 16th of December, 1883, and the fort was surrendered on the 25th of that month. It struck him that it was one of those operations which did more to impress upon the Indian mind the power of the British arms than larger and more ambitious operations. The first Question he had to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India was, whether any Report had been transmitted by the Indian Government of the operations of the Bikanir Field Force, 16th December, 1883, which resulted in the surrender of the Thakor of Bidasir and other Chiefs in revolt against His Highness the Maharajah of Bikanir and the capture of the strong force of Bidasir on 25th December, 1883? He knew the rule of the Service was that if an officer commanding in the field did not think a particular action of sufficient importance to make a special report upon it, it did not become the subject of special notice. But in India it must have a most unfortunate tendency if any action creditable to the force engaged should be overlooked, instead of having a mark of honour against the name of every man who took part in it. His second Question was, whether it was not desirable that all operations in the Field should be communicated by the Indian Department to the War Office and Horse Guards for the information of the military authorities at home, and for record of war services of officers of Her Majesty's Forces, British and Indian?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was sorry to say that he was not aware of any omission in this case until his noble Friend called his attention to it. It was the invariable rule and practice that information of any movement sent home from India was at once communicated to the War Office; but in this case unfortunately, through some oversight, that was not done. The facts were correctly stated by the noble Lord. It appeared that there was a rebellion against the Ruler of Bikanir, and he, being unable to suppress it, applied to the Indian Government, which sent to his assistance 1,800 men, under the command of General Gillespie. They marched into the country, and he was happy to say that there was no bloodshed whatever, and that the troops were not called upon to act beyond blowing up some forts which surrendered. That was the whole, the beginning, and the end of it. He had no desire to depreciate the service rendered by General Gillespie. He might say that the authorities at Bombay had expressed their entire satisfaction with the conduct of the expedition. Colonel Pottinger, Military Secretary to the Government of Bombay, in forwarding (17th January, 1884) to the Government of India a letter from the Quartermaster General respecting the operations of the Bikanir Field Force, states—
  "I am to express the satisfaction of his Excellency the Governor in Council with the judicious and complete arrangements made under the orders of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief and the Lieutenant General commanding the Mhow division for the service required by the Government of India, whereby success was assured and every precaution taken for the efficiency and health of the troops engaged."
  The Quartermaster General of the Bombay Army, in the communication referred to, says—
  "The Commander-in-Chief desires me to express his Excellency's entire satisfaction with the management of the expedition, which was carried out ably and judiciously by Brigadier General Gillespie. General Hardinge has read with pleasure the favourable report on Lieutenant Coles, R.E., and is glad to record that the conduct and health of the troops were all that could be desired."

POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL.

  (NO. 172.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to provide an easy process enabling the Post Office to obtain legal redress for a class of offences of more or less frequent occurrence, and for which the only remedy at present was a civil suit for damages. In some cases the damage was only intended, and had not occurred; while in others, perhaps, it was small as compared with what was intended, or with the inconvenience caused to the Department and to the public. For example, at present if a boy put a match into a pillar letter-box he could only be proceeded against for malicious injury, and if no injury was caused he escaped punishment altogether. The penalties provided in the Bill were light, mostly small fines such as would be now imposed on convictions if obtained in suits for malicious injury to property.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 173.)
(The Lord President.)
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 173.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the subject with which it dealt was one of very considerable interest and importance in Ireland, and one which had had a very strange and melancholy history. For more than a century past the Irish Endowed Schools had been a subject of perpetual complaints and inquiries—the inquiries always to a large extent justifying the complaints—and yet of perpetual inaction. The Journals of the Irish Parliament were filled with complaints of these Schools. Early in the century there was a Royal Commission on the Irish Endowed Schools, and it was reported by the Commission that the schools had not been conducted according to the intentions of their founders. In the year 1813 Sir Robert Peel did something, which certainly was not effectual. He created a body, which was called the Commissioners of Education

  15
  in Ireland, for the purpose of superintending and controlling the Endowed Schools; but he unfortunately failed to confer upon that body powers which would enable it to perform its duties with success, and the consequence was that that body of Commissioners, for the last 80 years, had—not through any fault of its members, but owing to deficiency of power—carried on a comparatively useless existence. In 1835 a remarkable Committee of the House of Commons sat, under the Presidency of that able educationist, Sir Thomas Wyse, to consider and report upon the subject. In 1854 a Royal Commission was appointed, commonly called Lord Kildare's Commission, which recommended the appointment of a new Board with large controlling powers. Again, in 1870, a Commission, presided over by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Powis), recommended that these Endowed Schools should be revised upon the English plan. That was the plan upon which the Bill now before their Lordships was framed. All these inquiries, as he had said, had met with the same fate. All the recommendations made had been so many dead letters. The late Government had carried a very important Education Act, of which the friends of education in Ireland thought a great deal—namely, the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act; but that measure did not touch Endowed Schools. However, in 1878, the Lord Lieutenant—the late Duke of Marlborough—taking, as their Lordships knew he did, a very deep interest in this subject, and feeling the urgent necessity for legislation upon it, adopted the course of instituting one further inquiry. His Grace appointed a Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Rosse, commonly called "Lord Rosse's Commission." At the end of 1880 that Commission reported, and furnished a large and most valuable collection of facts and information; but it made no direct recommendations as to legislation, or as to the means to be taken to remedy the evils which were found to exist, because it was not authorized to make recommendations. The present Bill, he might say, had been drawn up by the Irish Government upon the lines clearly indicated by the Report of Lord Rosse's Commission. The endowments which would come within the scope of the Bill were attached to 278 Primary Schools
  16
  under the National Board, and to 415 other schools, making a total of 693. Many of the endowments were extremely small; but others were important. The whole amount of landed property possessed by the various endowments was 76,000 acres; and the income derived from that property was something like £56,000 a-year. There were also trust funds upon the whole amounting to £27,000 a-year, making altogether, in round numbers, a sum of rather more than £80,000 per annum. The Endowed Schools which would be dealt with by the Bill were first the Royal Schools—schools which, he hoped, would hereafter be much more important than they were at present. Then there were the Erasmus Smith's Schools, and the schools of the so-called Incorporated Society, which were originally intended for the conversion of Roman Catholics, but which entirely devoted their attention to youthful Protestants. In addition to these there was a large variety of schools managed in various ways. The Royal Schools, which he had mentioned, were, with a good many others, under the supervision of the Commissioners of Education—a body which had been severely criticized both by the last and by former Commissions; but that body itself had been as desirous as anyone outside of it could be to have its powers increased and rendered efficient; and its failings had mainly arisen, as he had said, from want of proper powers. They had, for example, no power to appoint or dismiss a teacher, or even to pay inspectors to go and inquire into the condition of the schools, and none to alter the management and disposition of the endowments. As to the Royal Schools, in order to give some idea of what amount of work they were performing — an amount of work which appeared to all the Commissions and to the Government quite inadequate to what might fairly be expected from them — he might mention that six Royal Schools had, the year before last, an average attendance, all taken together, of 283 pupils; they had an expenditure of £6,500, out of which the sum of £1,300 went for exhibitions and prizes. In some particular cases the contrast between expenditure and result was even more striking than that indicated by the figures just quoted. He took the Royal School of Dungannon, which had an

  17
  average attendance of 31 pupils and distributed prizes and exhibitions among them amounting annually to £468. That was not an expenditure which ought to be longer tolerated. He might give many cases of abuse among those schools; and, to say the very least, of totally inefficient results obtained from the expenditure of the endowments. He might mention the school in the borough of Swords. It was a curious case. The borough of Swords was disfranchised at the time of the Union; and for some reason or other which he did not quite understand it received from Parliament as compensation for its disfranchisement a sum of money which now amounted to £24,000 in Government Stock, which produced an annual income of £741. That income was professedly devoted to the maintenance of the school, which, according to its foundation and its charter, was established to promote education in the Christian religion, morality, industry, cleanliness, order, and so forth. But how did the endowment perform its services under those terms? The parish had about 2,200 inhabitants, of whom 250 were Protestants, and all the rest were Roman Catholics. The school contained only 63 pupils; it was taught by a Protestant clergyman, and was in all respects an exclusively Protestant school. That was a case which eminently required to be looked into. Without giving further instances, he might say that the £83,000 a-year belonging to the Irish endowed schools was now producing results utterly incommensurate with the benefit which the interests of education ought to derive from such an income. It was known that a large amount of good was being done by the Intermediate Education Commissioners with their comparatively moderate income; and one could well conceive how much support and assistance their operations would receive from the due application of some portion of the endowments of which he was now speaking. Now, it was provided in that Bill that the Commissioners should have power, in framing their schemes, to hand over some of the endowments intended for secondary education to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, and also to hand over endowments intended for primary education to the National Board in Dublin. It was quite evident that unless assistance
  18
  could be obtained from those endowments for the object in view, the Commissioners of Intermediate Education would before long make very strong, and, he thought, irresistible application to Parliament for the purpose of increasing their means of carrying on the great work in which they were engaged. There was no more need for inquiry. Inquiries had been conducted ad nauseam. The time had now come for action; and the Government proposed to take action in the same way as it had been taken both in England and Scotland on the subject of educational endowments. The Bill which he had brought in did not attempt to deal directly and in detail by Parliamentary action with those endowments. It did not seek to impose upon Parliament the task of re-organizing them; but, as in the case of England and Scotland, it proposed to create an Executive Commission which would undertake that work. The Bill was framed almost entirely on the lines of the Scotch Endowment Act of the year before last; the powers of the Commissioners and the definition of the endowments which were to be dealt with by the Commissioners were, he thought, almost identical. There was, indeed, one respect in which the definition of those endowments in the Bill differed from the Scotch Act, but agreed with the English Act—namely, that the Commissioners should not have power to deal with any endowment made within the last 50 years. Under that Bill, as in the English and Scotch Acts, schemes would be framed either by the Commissioners or by the Governing Bodies themselves, and would come before the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and be dealt with throughout with the usual forms of notice and inquiry, and with the same power as in former Acts of application to Parliament in the case of an opposed scheme. Every scheme framed would contain provisions for inspection and audit of accounts—a matter which had been long desired, and which was considered to be of vital importance. It was not intended that the Commission should be prolonged beyond the end of 1886. It was not likely that beyond that time there would be work for the Executive Commission. He did not know that he need describe the Bill in more detail; but he trusted that their Lordships would give it a good reception.

  19
  He could not help hoping that at last Parliament would thus secure to Ireland by means of those endowments for all time to come far greater benefits than had ever been derived from them before. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Pesident.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Bill at that stage; but he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to one or two points in the measure. He did not know that the second reading of the Bill was to be taken that day. Although he had heard rumours as to what the Bill proposed to do, he found that the Bill, to a certain extent, did what he expected. There were some things which he had hoped the Bill would have contained, but which he did not find in it. For instance, he did not find that any power was given to the Irish Education Board to sell their landed estates. This power was very desirable, because, although in the present state of Ireland they might not be able to sell them to any great advantage, yet, if a Bill introduced in "another place" should pass, it was not unreasonable to expect that by degrees those estates of the Irish Education Board might be disposed of. They produced £5,000 or £6,000 a-year; but of late years it had been extremely difficult to get any rent. He could not find that this power had been given in the Bill; but he expressed the hope that something might be done in this respect. He believed the provisions of the Bill would give rise to a great deal of discussion in both Houses.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the suggestions of the noble Earl would be carefully considered before the next stage was taken.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNasked that some delay should take place before the Committee stage was taken, in order that the Bill might be considered in Ireland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 14 th instant.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.