Sitting of 8 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Quarries Regulation* [254]; Public Health Acts Amendment (Buildings in Streets)* [255].
Second Reading—Office under the Crown (Vacating of Seats) [98], debate adjourned.
Committee—Libel Law Amendment* [17]—R.P. PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* [229].
Third Reading—Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse)* [194]; Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.)* [192], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SENTENCES AT KILRUSH PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as reported in the newspapers, that at the

  1603
  Kilrush Petty Sessions, Mr. John C. Mahony, J.P., presiding, a young man named Thomas W. Coote was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour for laughing at a policeman; whether it is also the fact that at Longford, on Tuesday last, the Court, consisting of Colonels Bowlby and Stewart, on the request of District Inspector Flower, warned persons allowing their children to hoot or cheer parties obnoxious to them, as the children would be sent to a reformatory; and, whether he can state under what branch of the Common or Statute Law it is a crime to cheer, hoot, or laugh at other persons?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University): Thomas Coote was sentenced to pay a fine of 10 s., or, in default, to be imprisoned for 14 days, for riotous behaviour in hooting and groaning at the police while they were engaged in dispersing a disorderly crowd in the streets of Kilrush. The prosecution was under the provisions of the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, before Mr. Mahony, borough magistrate. I am informed that the statement in the second paragraph of the Question as to what occurred at Longford on Tuesday last is without foundation. The hon. Gentleman will see that the Question put to me in the third paragraph does not arise.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the Question. Is it a crime to cheer, hoot, or laugh at other persons?
  MR. MADDEN: I am quite ready to answer any Question of law if there is any substratum of fact to support it; but, inasmuch as there has been no prosecution for any such act as that referred to in the Question, I would be trifling with the House if I were to answer it.
  DR. TANNER: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, how many men are in gaol in Ireland for the crime of having merely laughed at the police?
  MR. MADDEN: None, Sir.
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, was he not right in stating that this young man was sent to gaol for hooting and laughing at policemen?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir. The prosecution was under a section of the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, by which a borough magistrate can convict for riotous behaviour in the streets. The riotous behaviour in this case was what I have stated, hooting and groaning at the police while they were engaged in dispersing a disorderly crowd in the streets.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— KENAGH PETTY SESSIONS— SENTENCE ON A CHILD NINE YEARS OLD.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as reported in the newspapers, that at Kenagh, County Longford, on Friday, April 20, a child of nine years old was committed to prison for one month on a charge of having thrown stones during a recent eviction in the district of Newtown Cashel; and, whether he will make inquiry into the case, with a view to remitting what remains unexpired of the sentence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): The local Constabulary Authorities report that the statement alleged to have appeared in the newspapers as to a child of nine years old having been committed to prison for a month (or for any other term) at Kenagh Petty Sessions is without foundation.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—SENIOR TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Postmaster General, Whether there are at present in the Metropolitan Districts 25 first class telegraphists, whose length of service ranges from 18 to 24 years, who have been waiting at the maximum of their class since April, 1886; whether it is his intention to increase the senior class so as to relieve the congestion which at presort exists, and which must necessarily increase yearly as others arrive at the maximum; whether, in the Central Office, the number of senior telegraphists is 161, as compared with 334 first class, while in the Metropolitan Districts the numbers are 16 and 61 respectively; and, whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy the inequality?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the number of the first class telegraphists in the Metropolitan District who have attained to the maximum of their scale of pay is 24. and they reached their maximum in 1886. Of these 24 officers 15 have completed 18 years of service, and nine have not. The numbers of the respective classes are as stated by the hon. Member. The difference is due to the comparatively much larger number of superior duties performed in the Central Telegraph Office. The numbers of the classes both in the Central Telegraph Office and in the Metropolitan District are fixed strictly in accordance with the numbers of superior duties to be performed; and as there are at present no additional duties of the kind to be provided for in the Metropolitan District, I do not feel justified in making an addition to the senior class.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—ADDITION TO NUMBERS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Commander-in-Chief did not, before the Estimates for this year were settled, recommend or make "any demand whatever" for any considerable addition to the numbers of the Army, which he has since declared to be too weak for its duties; and, whether the preparation of the Estimates, or what other occasion, presents the proper opportunity for the chief military adviser of the Secretary of State to place on formal record his responsible opinion as to the number of men which he, as such military expert, may deem necessary for the requirements of the country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle): I stated the other day that no demand for an addition of 11,000 men to the Army was made to me officially or unofficially. The not addition asked for was between 2,000 and 3,000 men. The hon. Member will find in the Estimates of the present year that the battalions of Infantry and regiments of Cavalry first for service and in the Aldershot Division were raised to a higher establishment. He will also find a considerable increase in the number of the
  1606
  Royal Engineers and the Commissariat and Transport Staff. On the other hand, certain reductions were made which fixed the net increase to the Army at 276 men. The natural opportunity for raising any question of increase of establishments is before the Estimates are framed, because, of course, they entirely depend on the numbers of the establishment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, whether the construction placed by the Civil Authorities at the War Office on the sentence in the Order in Council imposing on the Commander-in-Chief the duty of preparing the Estimates was that he should submit what he considered to be an adequate estimate of the military requirements of the country?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No change whatever has been made in this respect by the recent re-organization. The Commander-in-Chief has always submitted annually his proposed establishment, and he does so now.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPART MENT)—THE ESTIMATE.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can now state if the Estimate of £40,435 for the first class at the Central Telegraph Office for the past financial year was not realized by over £7,000; whether there are over 100 vacancies in that class; and, whether he will consider the desirability of utilizing the whole of the Estimate of £41,252 for the current financial year by at once filling up those vacancies?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): In reply to the hon. Member, I can but repeat an answer given by me a few days ago that the charge for the salaries of telegraphists of the first class at the Central Telegraph Office in the past financial year will not fall short of the Estimate to the extent of £7,000. There are at present 70 vacancies in the class. As regards the current financial year, I have already stated, in answer to a Question put to me by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), that promotions will be made in due course; and that the expenditure for salaries of telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office will, in my belief, approximate very closely to the Estimate.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TRAVELLING POST OFFICES.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet decided on paying the 6d. per trip risk money to the men employed in the travelling post offices in Ireland, which he stated in February last was under the consideration of the Government; and, if so, will payment commence from the date of the Memorial (30th April, 1887) from the officers of that Department?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): No, Sir. The question is still under consideration. I hope, however, to be able to arrive at a decision upon it shortly.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—STAMP DUTY ON SECURITIES TO BEARER.
  MR. MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the exemption from the 1s. per cent duty on securities to bearer when actual ownership is not changed would extend to such securities if lodged as cover for loans or as security for bills accepted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): No, Sir; it would not. In such a lodgment as the hon. Member describes the actual ownership of the securities is not, it is true, changed; but there is an assignment of interest, and the new duty would, therefore, be payable.

  POST OFFICE—FOREIGN TELEGRAPH FORMS.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any particular reason why the paper used for foreign telegraph forms should be of such a quality that it is impossible to write on it without impediment from its fibrous and flimsy composition; and, whether he will order a better kind of paper to be supplied for this purpose in the future?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): A better kind of paper for the foreign telegraph form was introduced some time ago, and I have received from the public several expressions of satisfaction
  1608
  with the improvement. Possibly the form of which the hon. Member complains was one of the old issue.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRE LAND)—ROSSCARBERY PIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the cost of building the new pier at Rosscarbery; whether many protests have been made to the Dublin Castle authorities complaining of its present very unsatisfactory condition; whether it is a fact that serious inconvenience has ensued in consequence of shipping being delayed, sometimes for four days together, in consequence of being obliged to use the old pier and being obliged to await a high tide; whether the masters of vessels refuse to approach the new structure, in consequence of its incomplete and unsafe condition; and, what steps will be taken to remedy the existing defects?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.) (who replied) said: The pier in question cost £4,299. One gentleman has written two letters to the Castle respecting it, his principal ground of complaint being the delays of the contractor for the works. No other objections to the design or execution have reached the Government; but as the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commissioners only provided four feet of water at the pier head at low water springs, it evidently cannot be approached at all states of the tide. No further works are contemplated at this point, nor are there funds available for the purpose.

  TURKEY (EUROPEAN PROVINCES)— MACEDONIA.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for the report from Constantinople that British agents are at work in Macedonia, and that their action has been taken notice of by the Palace; and, whether several attempts which have been made by the local Constantinople Press to deny it have been suppressed by the censor?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): When a Question is

  1609
  asked as to the accuracy of a report it is usual to state where such a report has appeared.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the report appeared in two of the London morning papers of last Saturday.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am informed that no such report has appeared in any newspaper; but, if it had, I cannot imagine its being believed in by any one possessed of ordinary sobriety of judgment.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would supply the right hon. Baronet with cuttings, setting forth that British agents had been accused of fomenting disorder in Macedonia.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—HOSPITAL AC COMMODATION OF TRANSATLANTIC STEAMERS.
  DR. TANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the hospital accommodation on board most of the transatlantic steamers carrying emigrants is frequently, if not always, utilized for the accommodation of cabin or intermediate passengers, or of officers or crew; whether such hospital accommodation is intended by Act of Parliament to be kept unoccupied except by sick passengers or crew; and, what guarantee is given that, after the emigration officer has cleared such vessels, the executive officers of such ships other than the medical officer will not allocate the hospital berths to such persons as they please who are neither sick nor ailing?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.): I have made inquiries; and I am assured by the Companies that the hospital accommodation on board the transatlantic steamers carrying emigrants is not utilized for the accommodation of cabin or intermediate passengers, or of officers or crew. Such hospital accommodation is intended by Act of Parliament to be kept always for the service of sick passengers or crew. No such hospital berths can be allocated to other than sick persons, unless on the express sanction of the medical officer of the ship.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was not a well-known fact, from all the Reports furnished by the emigration officers at Liverpool and Queenstown, that such hospital accommodation was
  1610
  frequently utilized by both passengers and crews?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am certainly not aware of it. I have given the hon. Member the best information I can obtain.

  THE CURRENCY—ISSUE OF BRONZE COINS.
  MR. L. FRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the amount of bronze coins issued by the Mint in the year 1887, as compared with 1886; whether he has received any information or complaints of a glut of such coinage existing in any localities to the loss and inconvenience of traders; and, whether, if there is ground for any such complaints, he will temporarily suspend the issue of bronze coins, so as to adjust the circulation to the requirements of the public?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): The amount of bronze coin issued in 1887 was £57,680, as against £42,610 in the preceding year. For many years past the issue of bronze coin has been suspended in districts in which a redundancy has been reported to the Mint. During 11 months of the year 1887 applicants for pence in London were referred to firms of brewers who held a surplus stock of this coin; and the issue of pence and halfpence was frequently suspended in certain Northern districts, where banking firms undertook to meet the local demands. Since February last, again, applicants for pence and halfpence residing in the North of England have been referred to a Liverpool firm who hold a considerable surplus stock. The occasions on which the issue of bronze coin was suspended in different districts were more numerous in 1886 than in 1887.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—LOSS OF LIFE FROM SCOTCH FISHING BOATS.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the great and increasing loss of life at sea from fishing boats in Scotland; whether his attention has been called to the following statement in The Scotsman newspaper of the 23rd of April last, where, after describing the

  1611
  death by drowning of a fisherman, it proceeds:—
  "This is the fourth instance this year of fishermen falling overboard on this coast and being drowned. The cause of these accidents is almost wholly attributed to the want of safety rails on these boats;"
  and, whether, in view of the alarming frequency of these accidents, and the great loss of life consequent thereon, the Board of Trade will take such steps, as indicated above or otherwise, as will secure reasonable protection to these men in their dangerous calling?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.): My attention has been directed to this matter, and an officer of the Board of Trade is now engaged in inquiring into it. I hope the inquiry will result in something being done.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AL LEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. CAREWasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the prosecution for insurance frauds at Belfast, Whether his attention has been called to the statements made by Mr. Young, solicitor for the accused man Orr, in the Belfast Police Court, on Friday last, and published in the Belfast papers of Saturday last, in which he told the Court that his client, J. Speers Orr, had been from the beginning, and was then, prepared to give unconditionally every assistance in his power to bring to justice the guilty parties who have been for some time back gambling on the lives of others in Belfast, and whose practices have given such a shock to its citizens; whether Mr. Young then pledged himself that, if the Crown took up the case, he would supply them with sufficient evidence to convict those who are at present not in custody, but "who were the first to formulate this dreadful plan of trafficking in human life;" whether he is aware that Mr. Matthews, a Town Councillor at Belfast, surrendered about £17,000 of life policies which had been fraudulently obtained, and that the surrender of these policies had been accepted by the Company which had charge of the recent prosecutions against Orr; whether the greater number of these policies were issued on the lives
  1612
  of persons who were in bad health when the proposals were made, and were obtained by means of forgeries, and on lives in which Matthews had no insurable interest, and without the consent of the persons assured; and, whether, considering the number of lives which have been so assured, and the general feeling of indignation and uneasiness which this discovery has given rise to in Belfast and throughout the country, the Government will now take steps to proceed against the principals whose dunes have been sent forward for trial?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University): The Attorney General for Ireland, having before him the result of the preliminary inquiries at the instance of the private prosecution in the case of the Belfast insurance frauds case, decided on conducting the prosecution on behalf of the Crown. It would be obviously improper for me to discuss the facts of individual charges; but I may state that the whole case is being thoroughly investigated, not only as regards the persons returned for trial, but with reference to every person implicated in the matter. The Attorney General has given full instructions in the matter which are being actively carried out, and no effort will be spared to bring all guilty persons to justice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to allow the venue to remain at Belfast?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no special information on that point.

  METROPOLITAN DRAINAGE—OUT- FALL SEWAGE WORKS AT CROSSNESS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works, on Friday last, accepted a tender (£259,816) for additional outfall sewage works at Crossness; whether he can state the nature and tenor of the Report of the consulting chemist of the Board on the use of chemicals as failing to prevent the foul condition of the river during hot weather and seasons of drought; whether the proposed outfall works are opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission presided over by Baron Bramwell; and, whether, pending the

  1613
  passage of the Local Government Bill now before Parliament, the Metropolitan Board of Works will refrain from entering on such works involving a large expenditure of public money and the utility of which is challenged by very high authority?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the Board did on Friday last accept a tender for some large works at the Crossness Sewage Outfall, the works being mainly for the purpose of purifying the sewage by precipitation of the solid matter, and including also an enlargement of the sewage reservoir, which has for some years past been of too limited capacity, thus necessitating the occasional discharge of sewage into the river before the tide has begun to ebb. The Board's consulting chemist has reported that the use of chemicals will not prevent a foul condition of the river in droughts or during hot weather; but in thus speaking he refers to the application of chemicals to crude sewage, as has been the case during the last two or three summers, it not having yet been possible to put into operation the process of separating the solid matter from the whole of the sewage. The proposed works can hardly be said to be opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission; inasmuch as the Commission contemplated as one alternative the discharge of the separated liquid at the present outfalls after it had been purified by filtration through land. Therefore, whatever method of purification may be finally adopted, the precipitation works and the enlargement of the reservoir now resolved upon are not opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Board does not take the view that the circumstance of a Local Government Bill being now before Parliament relieves the Board from the duty which devolves upon it, and which, moreover, has so frequently been urged upon it by the Government, of preventing the pollution of the River Thames by the discharge of crude sewage.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the House had not been led to understand that the Board would not undertake any fresh works, except those which were of a specially urgent nature?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: These works are of great urgent necessity.

  MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT— CUSTOM HOUSE DELAYS.
  MR. SCHWANNasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, under the new Merchandize Marks Act, it is permissible for the Custom House authorities to delay cases of goods, send samples to the Board of Trade, and then forward the goods finally to consignees, without returning the samples subtracted for submission to the Board, thereby causing on some occasions a loss of several per cent on the value of the goods; and, if this is not permissible, how is the consignee to obtain redress, which is denied at present?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.): No samples of goods detained under the Merchandize Marks Act have been forwarded by the Custom House authorities to the Board of Trade. It may be that the local Customs Authorities forwarded samples to the Board of Customs in London; but that, of course, has nothing to do with the Board of Trade.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—AN AMERI CAN ZOLLVEREIN OR CUSTOMS UNION.
  MR. SCHWANNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been drawn to an Exchange Company's telegram of the 26th of April, dated Ottawa, April 26, to the following effect:—
  "That the Republics of Central and South America, Hayti, San Domingo, and the Brazilian Empire have decided to send delegates to Washington next April to attend a Convention having for its object the promotion of an American Zollverein or Customs Union, to the exclusion of the goods of other countries;"
  and, if there is any truth in the statement; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Representatives in the Southern and Central American States have been requested to point out to the Governments to which they are accredited that in joining such a Customs Union, to the exclusion of the competition of other manufacturing countries other than the United States, they would act detrimentally to the interests of the trade of this country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Man- chester, N.E.): Her Majesty's Government were informed in 1886 that such a!. scheme was spoken of, and inquiries were made in America about it. It assumed no definite shape, and we have received no recent information on the subject. Inquiries will now be made regarding it. I am afraid that if the scheme should be seriously contemplated, the Governments concerned will consider their national interests rather than those of British commerce.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— EXPENSES OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the moneys of the rate-payers are being applied to the defence of the Metropolitan Board of Works before the Royal Commission; if so, whether those ratepayers, who are seeking to substantiate the very grave charges which they have felt it their duty to make against that Body, will not have the same privilege?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) (who replied) said: There is no precedent, so far as I am aware, for allowing the expenses of counsel appearing before a Royal Commission out of public funds. The legitimate expenses of witnesses called by the ratepayers will be defrayed by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament. I am not aware that the Board of Works propose to pay their counsel out of the rates. If they do so, they must justify that expenditure under some statutory power.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—THE CART TAX-TRACTION- ENGINES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will fix a maximum sum beyond which owners of traction-engines shall not be taxed, as is proposed in Clause 10 of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill in the case of livery stable keepers; whether, as under Clause 5 of that Bill the tax on trade carts is limited to the number of carts kept, he will propose a similar limitation in the case of trucks drawn
  1616
  by traction-engines; and, whether road steam rollers are to be taxed under the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): My answer to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman is, No. My answer to the second is also in the negative, though I think the point is a fair one for him to raise in Committee on the Bill. In answer to his third Question, I have to say that road steam rollers, if used solely for local public purposes, will not be liable to duty.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SUFFOLK COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. GREENEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will cause a Return to be made of all Courts holden by Sir Francis Roxburgh as the County Court Judge for Suffolk, distinguishing those held monthly from the bi-monthly Courts, and when the edict of the Lord Chancellor was given for the latter, how, and to whom; and, if, considering the increasing dissatisfaction that exists in the county, an official will be sent to the various districts to make inquiries and to gather evidence as to the accuracy of the reflective statements made against the Judge?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has no objection to giving the Return asked for by my hon. Friend. He is unable, however, to accede to the suggestion contained in the second paragraph of the Question; as, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he considers that to institute such an inquiry would be injurious to the Public Service, and unfair to the Judge himself.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 18S7—CRIMES ACT COURTS—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will now communicate to the House what are the "certain principles" guiding the allocation of Resident Magistrates in trying cases under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): As far as possible Resident Magistrates are not sent out of their division to serve on Crimes Act Courts. As far as possible no Resident Magistrate is required to sit on a Crimes Court in his own district. Resident Magistrates are not asked to serve in a judicial capacity in cases where they have acted in an executive capacity.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, how it was that two Resident Magistrates were recently sent 50 or 60 miles to try a case under the Crimes Act; but when they got there it was found that neither possessed the legal knowledge of which the Lord Lieutenant would be satisfied?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arrangements for sending Resident Magistrates are made by the Divisional Magistrate for the Division. Of course, when such a case occurs as that quoted by the hon. Gentleman, it shows that there must be some error in the constitution of the Court.
  MR. FLYNN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that Resident Magistrates have to try cases in various parts of the country, suggest that there should be some change in their designation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There does not appear to me to be anything in the name. As the hon, Member is aware, a Crimes Act Court must consist of two Resident Magistrates, and one of those obviously must serve out of his own district.
  MR. FLYNN: What I asked the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he cannot, by any means, alter the designation of these Resident Magistrates, in view of the fact that they adjudicate in every part of the country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There does not appear to be anything in the name.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—ALLEGED CIRCULAR OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, among the Papers he has received from India regarding the Contagious Diseases Acts, there is a Circular Memorandum, dated the 17th of June, 1886, from Major General E. F.
  1618
  Chapman, Quartermaster General in India, to the General Officers commanding Divisions and Districts; whether it states that it was written by order of General Sir Frederick Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief; whether, in furtherance of the instructions in such Memorandum, the officer commanding the 2nd Cheshire Regiment at Solon caused a requisition to be sent to the Cantonment Magistrate at Umballa, stating that the strength of the regiment was 400 men, and that six additional women were now required for it; whether, in remitting a copy of this on the 6th of August, 1886, to the Assistant Quarter-master General, the officer commanding the Cheshire Regiment wrote—
  "Some of the women now with the head-quarters of the 2nd Batt. Cheshire Regiment are not very attractive, and application has been made to the Cantonment Magistrate, Umballa, for others, but up to date none have arrived; therefore it is presumed a great difficulty exists in procuring the class of young women asked for;"
  and, has the 2nd Cheshire Regiment been specially singled out to be supplied with women in this way?
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with respect to a Paper to which his attention has been called, which purports to be a copy of a Circular Memorandum issued from the Office of Quartermaster General in India, dated from the Army Head Quarters, Simla, the 17th of June, 1886, addressed to General Officers commanding Divi- sions and Districts, containing among others the following sentence:—
  "In the regimental bazaars it is necessary to have a sufficient number of women, to take care that they are sufficiently attractive, to provide them with proper houses, and, above all, to insist upon means of ablution being always available;"
  and purporting to be signed by E. F. Chapman, Major General, Quarter-master General in India; and, whether he will at once telegraph to India to ascertain if such a document, or any document substantially of that character, has been issued from that or any other Government Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): Perhaps the hon. Members will allow me to answer their Questions, as my

  1619
  hon. Friend is not able to be in his place to-night. The Under Secretary of State for India has already several times stated to the House that no such document has been received at the India Office, and that the Secretary of State has no information on the other allegations contained in the Question. He has already made the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch; but has not yet received a reply. The Questions imply a practice or system of providing women for the several regiments in India. To any such practice, if it exists, the Secretary of State is as entirely opposed as the hon. Members who have asked such Questions. It is, in his opinion, wholly indefensible; and the orders which he has sent out to the Government of India will effectually put an end to it if it exists.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Under Secretary of State had already telegraphed to India to ascertain whether the document was genuine or not?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I must confine my answer to that which has been given to me by the Department. I think the answer I have given covers that Question.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he desired to ask whether a definite document existed or not; and, if it existed, to ask that it might be laid on the Table of the House? He asked a Question yesterday on the same subject; and he received a private message from the Under Secretary of State that if he would put the Question again he would definitely state whether he would telegraph or not.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Will the hon. Member be good enough to give Notice of that Question?
  MR. JAMES STUARTwished to point out that that would put him off until Thursday. A discussion was to take place on Tuesday next on the subject, and it was most important to know, for the purposes of that discussion, whether the document was genuine or not. He begged to say that he had received the assurance he had mentioned from the Under Secretary of State; and he asked for a further assurance from him that a telegraphic despatch would be at once sent to ascertain the genuineness
  1620
  of the document. He would put the Question again on Thursday.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AS SAULT ON A POLICEMAN AT MACROOM.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Irwin, R.M., who acted as presiding magistrate, on giving the decision of the Bench in the case of "O'Shea v. Reardon," for an assault alleged to have been committed in Macroom, on the 8th of April last, is correctly reported to have stated, with respect to the meeting held on the occasion at issue, that he was not there to justify the magistrates who suppressed the meeting, but he even thought the meeting legal; whether it was clearly proved that O'Shea first struck Creedon; whether Mr. Irwin said that Creedon had no right to resist; whether it was on account of Creedon's superior strength he received the sentence of four months' imprisonment; whether it was proved that Creedon, after knocking O'Shea down, was attacked by nine or 10 policemen; whether it is correct that for several minutes they made no attempt to arrest him, but beat him with batons and fists; and, whether, under the circumstances, an inquiry will be made into the case, and the suppression of the meeting in question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): I have caused a Report to be called for in regard to this Question, which is on today's Paper without previous Notice. A local reference has been found to be necessary; and I have, therefore, been unable to obtain the requisite reply.

  MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1886 —FOREIGN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Medical Acts Amendment Bill which passed in 1886, and provided for registering duly-qualified foreign medical practitioners, is now in operation, and whether the requisite forms will be supplied to those practitioners to fill up for registration; and, whether he can name the countries that are eligible to claim registration for their medical practitioners?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford): The second part of the Act has only been applied to New Zealand and Ceylon. In regard to registration of foreign medical practitioners, Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Act prescribe the exact course to be adopted.

  THE FRANCHISE ACT (IRELAND)— REMUNERATION OF CLERKS OF UNIONS, &c.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Government intend to bring in their Bill for remuneration of Clerks of Unions and Poor Rate Collectors in Ireland for the compulsory duties imposed on them under the Franchise Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): It is impossible for me to add anything to the answer given on this subject by the Parliamentary Under Secretary some time ago.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—MONEY COLLECTIONS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works made a bye-law on the 23rd of December, 1887, prohibiting under penalty
  "The soliciting or gathering money in or on the parks, commons, heaths, open spaces, embankments, and recreation grounds under the control of the Board from persons frequenting the same;"
  whether he approved of this bye-law on the 25th of February, 1888; whether, in so approving, he understood that the bye-law would be applied to the case of the chairman of a public meeting asking for contributions to defray the costs of that meeting; and, whether he is aware that for a number of years public meetings have been held in Southwark Park on local and general questions, at which it has been the custom to make a collection to defray the expenses of the meeting, the balance, if any, being paid to some Charitable Institution.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. I understood that the bye-law would be applied in the case of persons who, after addressing a meeting,
  1622
  solicited money from the audience and bystanders, a practice which, in the opinion of the Board, was not desirable at public meetings. I was told that on some occasions money had been so collected at meetings held in Southwark Park; but I was not informed of the purposes to which the collections were devoted. The bye-laws were duly advertised before being sanctioned, and no objections were received.

  INDIA—AUTHORTZED PROSTITUTION.
  MR. STANSFELDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, How soon he will be able to state to the House the steps which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take to carry out in India the Resolution of this House of March 16, 1886, disapproving of the compulsory examination of women?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.) (who replied) said: The despatch which contained the full Report on this subject, for which the Secretary of State had asked, arrived from India a fortnight ago. The despatch is now before the Secretary of State in Council; and its consideration is proceeding with the utmost expedition consistent with due deliberation on so important a subject. The Under Secretary of State for India has every reason to believe that he will be able to make the statement asked for on Monday next.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CHILDERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the promise made to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) yesterday with regard to the sending of a message to India, he would himself undertake that that message should be sent to India?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): I was under the impression that the answer given by my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) implied that that message had been sent. [Cries of "No!"] But he did not feel himself at liberty to go beyond the precise terms of the answer put into his hands. I will certainly undertake that the message shall be transmitted to India, if it has not been done already; but my belief is that it has been already done.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. CAUSTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether before the second reading of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill he will lay upon the Table of the House a full statement of the exemptions from liability to taxation he is prepared to make.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): The exemptions are in the Bill. There is nothing beyond them which I would propose. If the hon. Member applies his mind to it with impartiality I have no doubt he will discover what the exemptions are.

  ADMIRALTY—INCREASED PAY TO SENIOR LIEUTENANTS.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When it is proposed to commence paying the senior lieutenants of the Navy on the increased scale of pay provided for in the Estimates and promised in his Memorandum?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The improved scale of pay obtained for the senior lieutenants in the Navy will be paid from the 1st of April last.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE LAND) ACT, 1887—SENTENCE ON S. P. KINGSTON AND WIFE FOR FOR CIBLE POSSESSION.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the report in the London Daily Telegraph of the 3rd instant of proceedings under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," at Skibbereen on the 2nd instant, stating that a man named Samuel Paul Kingston, who is 80 years of age, and his wife, were brought before Messrs. Warburton and Major Caddell, Resident Magistrates, charged with taking forcible possession; that from the evidence it appeared that the defendants were evicted from their farm on the 20th of February last, and that they went back into one of the outhouses, and when asked to leave said they had no place to go but the roadside; that, notwithstanding the request of Dr. Lewis, J.P., the landlord, that the defendants
  1624
  might be dealt with leniently, and the entreaties of Mrs. Kingston to the magistrates not to send the old man to gaol for the first time in his life as he was very delicate, the Bench sentenced the old man to one month and his wife to a fortnight in Cork Gaol; and, whether, taking the circumstances into account, he will consider the propriety of advising the Lord Lieutenant to exercise his prerogative in this case, and remit the sentence on this old man and his wife?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): I have not yet received a full Report in this case; but I gather that, with slight exceptions, the main statements contained in the Question are correct. I am making further inquiries into the matter.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCES AT CASTLEREA.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report in The Freeman's Journal of the 3rd instant, to the following effect, that—
  "In Castlerea, on Saturday last, on the occasion of Mr. John Fitzgibbon's trial, a number of little boys with whistles went through the town, the eldest not being over 14 years of age. One of the policemen, who were very excited, attacked a boy only 12 years old, and struck him with a bâton on the head, inflicting a severe wound. So much blood flowed, that it was deemed desirable to bring him to the barrack and have the wound washed before showing him to the magistrates;"
  are the facts as stated; who was in command of the police, and were they ordered to charge the boys and bâton them; what was the result of this boy being brought before the magistrates; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on this occasion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): The Divisional Magistrate reports that the facts are not as stated in the Question. Nothing of the kind occurred on Saturday; but on Sunday night, April 29, a disorderly mob of between 30 and 40 men and boys paraded the streets of Castlerea shouting, yelling, and blowing tin whistles. As they passed the barrack the Head Constable with two constables went out and proceeded after them. On their approach the mob dispersed; but, collecting again, stoned the three police-

  1625
  men, who thereupon endeavoured to disperse them. A lad about 15 years old received a slight cut on his head, and was arrested almost simultaneously by the Head Constable. He was subsequently charged at Petty Sessions with being one of a disorderly and stone-throwing mob. He was bound over to come up for judgment if called upon within six months.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, would it not be possible to get Reports on these cases from impartial and independent authority?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL—THE FRANCHISE.
  MR. JOICEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, under the burgess qualification in the Local Government (England and Wales) Electors Bill, miners and others occupying their employers' houses rent free or as part of their wages would be entitled to exercise the franchise for the election of Local Authorities?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): It is a question of fact in each case who are the occupiers; but if the houses occupied by the miners or other persons are separately rated to the poor, then, in my opinion, the occupiers will be entitled to exercise the franchise in question.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY DEFENCES— THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the pledge given by him on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of our Naval and Military Defences; in view also of the letter published in The Times of September 23, 1884, signed W. H. Smith, pressing for a searching inquiry into the state of the Navy, Her Majesty's Government will consent to re-consider the terms of the "Order of Reference" to the Royal Commission on Naval and Military Administration, so that the inquiry may embrace the reception of evidence from
  1626
  competent professional witnesses as to the sufficiency or otherwise of our existing Naval Force to meet the requirements of the Empire for the better enabling Her Majesty's Government to base their Naval policy upon fixed principles?
  TEE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): I stated on Thursday the circumstances under which the Reference to the Royal Commission had been somewhat narrowed from that which had been originally proposed. I should have been very glad if it had been possible to adhere to the letter of the proposed Reference; but after making every endeavour to do so the Government found themselves unable to constitute a Commission which would have reported within a reasonable time, and in adopting the course they had found themselves compelled to take they have not excluded an examination by some other method of the important questions which are omitted from the present Reference. My hon. and gallant Friend now asks if the inquiry to be conducted by my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) may be extended to the question of the sufficiency of our Naval Forces. In the debate, and in the terms of Reference as proposed in March, I insisted on the responsibility of the Government for the adequacy of the Forces of the country. I declined to include the question as one that could be submitted to a Commission; and I adhere to that view, accepting to the fullest extent the very heavy responsibility which, under our Parliamentary system, rests upon the Heads of the Departments and upon the Government as a whole. We have the advantage of the counsel and assistance in administration of eminent professional authorities, of which it is our duty to avail ourselves. We have not ceased to devote our anxious and careful attention to the development of the defensive resources of the country; and while we are prepared to maintain that great advances have been made during the last three or four years, we are not insensible to the duty of continued vigilance, and of persistence in a policy by which the available mechanical power of the country shall be used to make our strength at sea adequate to our responsibilities.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.),
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)said, that he hoped to take the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Salary) Bill and the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill on Monday next; but he would give a definite reply on Thursday.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked, in consequence of the answer of the Chief Secretary, Whether it was proposed to take the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill before Thursday; because, if so, he thought there would be great inconvenience?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, he feared the Bill could not be taken before Thursday in next week; but he would shortly make a statement as to the order of Business?

MOTIONS.

  CORPORATION OF LONDON (MALVER SATION OF FUNDS).
  RESOLUTION.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to the Report of the City Corporation (Malversation of Funds) Committee, 1887; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, without delay, to place the expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London under similar statutory restrictions to those to which other Corporations in the Kingdom are subject."
  Perhaps, in the first instance, it was desirable that he should shortly draw the attention of the House to what those statutory restrictions were. Before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, all Corporations had been regarded as the owners of their property; but the effect of that Act was held to be to constitute them into trustees of such property only. That was supposed to be the effect of the 92nd section, and the 94th imposed a restriction upon their method of dealing with their property without the approval of the Treasury. The whole of the provisions of the Act in respect of property was reenacted in the Consolidation Act of 1882,
  1628
  which was now the law. Under the last Act, all income from property was to be paid into the borough fund, and the borough fund was only applicable to certain purposes set out in the Act. This provision had been found to work satisfactorily in 246 boroughs which were at the present time placed under the provisions of the Act. With respect to the Corporation of the City of London, it was not, as the House was aware, under the Act of 1835. Lord John Russell promised in that year that it should be placed under a similar set of restrictions; but the promised Bill was not introduced, although no question was raised as to the propriety of placing the Corporation of London under the same control as other Corporations. In 1853, a Commission sat, which consisted of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Mr. Justice Pattison, and Mr. Labouchere, to consider the question. That Commission recommended that the very thing should be done which he proposed to the House in his Resolution—namely, that the provisions as to expenditure of the Municipal Corporations Act should be applied to London. It was also suggested that there should be auditors with full powers of examination and disallowance. In the document supplied to hon. Members by the Corporation of the City of London in opposition to the present Motion, it was said that they published annually a fully audited account of their receipts, and that the members who disbursed the funds of the Corporation were accountable to their constituents. As one of the constituents in question, he could only say that he had never seen any fully audited accounts. The audit of the Corporation of London was of a kind which differed altogether from any other audit existing in this country. The City Livery Companies and the members of the City Guilds elected four men as auditors; but theirs was not analogous to other audits. The auditors could not verify the truth of the vouchers. City Committees were entitled to draw upon the Chamberlain by warrants; and, if the auditors saw the warrant, they were unable to go behind it. As a matter of fact, neither the auditors nor the Common Councilmen themselves were aware what the details of the expenditure were. He need scarcely say that, under those circumstances, there was no surcharge. In

  1629
  the evidence given before the Commission, it was said that in one instance an order was given for payment of £1,287 by the City Committee to one of its own members. In regard to that payment no details were given, according to the Remembrancer's own evidence. When asked whether the word of the member of the Committee was the only authority for the expenditure, the City Remembrancer replied—"Rather, I would say, the wish of the Committee." Now, the City of London had always claimed to be the absolute owners of their property, and no opportunity had ever been afforded for contesting what their position in that respect really was. They protested last year, before the Committee of this House, against the production of their accounts and their expenditure in connection with their estate, on the ground that it would be a derogation of the ancient rights and privileges of the Corporation and of the Livery. He supposed that they claimed to be in the same position as that in which they were previous to the passing of the Act of 1885. He knew of no decision, although there was a dictum of Lord Eldon on the matter, in which any Corporation before the Act was not entitled to regard itself as owner. The suggestion contained in his Resolution was that the Corporation of London should now be placed under the same restrictions as other Corporations. In their statement the City of London said that they differed from other Corporations, inasmuch as other bodies levied a borough rate which was restricted to the purposes for which that rate was levied. The 92nd section of the Act of 1835, and the corresponding section of the Act of 1882, provided that the income derived from all property should be applied to the purposes of the borough fund, and that all the property of the Corporation should be in the position of trust property. In their statement, the Corporation said something in regard to the word "malversation." Now, that word was one which was put in the Reference to the Committee last year. He did not know who put it in, and it was not in the terms of his Motion. It was difficult to see what would be malversation. The Corporation said that he had been unable to substantiate the charges he had made; but he was not responsible for the use
  1630
  of that word. The Report of the Committee last year deprecated the use of the term "malversation," but went on to say that the Corporation had from the earliest times freely expended the City cash without any control by Parliament, and that Parliament had never required any accounts to be rendered. That was quite true. Their Report went on to say that no conclusive judgment on the question of malversation could be arrived at except by a Court of Law. That undoubtedly was so, and he ventured to think the matter ought not to have been referred to a Committee at all. They said that he had failed in substantiating the charges he had made against the Corporation; but, as he had pointed out, he was not responsible for the use of the word "malversation." He thought that was an improper word to use. All that he said was that there was no proper control over the expenditure. Attention was called to this fact by the Commission which sat in 1853, and a year or two afterwards Sir George Grey's Government Bill came on for discussion. On that occasion it was asserted in regard to the large expenditure of the City Corporation that they declined to give any explanation of the expenditure, simply contenting themselves by saying that the money was judicially and fairly expended. As a matter of fact, the Court of Aldermen declined to give an account of the expenditure of the City cash, even to the Common Council. Before the inquiry of the Commission in 1853, the evil of the absence of public examination was forcibly shown, and it was because it was forcibly shown that the Committee practically recommended that there should be what he proposed to add—namely, statutory restrictions. There was evidence given of the expenditure of some thousands of pounds in opposing a Government Bill; and, further, that Petitions had been got up by the City officers to insure its defeat, the plea being that if the public were made aware of all the circumstances of the case, the opposition would be more effectual. Of course, that might or might not be so. His view of the case was that where a great Corporation spent large sums of money, as it was well known the City Corporation did, it was not a matter which should be affected by secret petitioning; but it was clearly the right of the House of Com-

  1631
  mons to insist upon the expenditure being made a matter of common knowledge. That state of things continued for some years. In 1881, there was a serious inquiry into the propriety of continuing the Coal and Wine Dues. Last year the Corporation endeavoured to develop a predominant opinion in favour of those dues, and a Petition was presented to the House signed by 93,000 persons in favour of the continuance of the dues. It would appear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that unless there was a predominant public opinion in favour of the dues, the Government would seriously consider the question of continuing them. Accordingly, an endeavour was made to obtain a predominant public opinion, and the City Solicitor employed a man who employed other men to obtain signatures to a Parliamentary Petition. Upwards of 90,000 signatures passed through their hands in regard to which an expert declared his doubt whether a very large proportion were genuine at all. Not only was this scandal created, but it was found that all the expenditure in getting the Petition was paid out of the City cash. He therefore suggested that there ought to be that statutory control over the expenditure of the City cash which there was over the expenditure of other Corporations. He would give the House an illustration of what it was he desired to draw attention to in his Resolution. In 1882, in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, it was suggested that there should be an extension of municipal government in London. A Committee of the City Corporation was appointed to consider the question, and to do as they might deem expedient. That Committee had power to expend whatever money they thought fit. As a matter of fact, they did expend £19,550, but no Report was ever presented to the Common Council, and every application made for it had been in vain. Last year an inquiry into the action of the Committee was decreed by the House on account of the discovery, or production of the copy of a book, of one of the Associations which had worked with the City officers. That book was printed at the end of the Report of the Committee, and it justified every statement he had made.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he rose to Order. He wished to know
  1632
  whether an hon. Member was allowed to read his speech? He had been keeping his eye on the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), and he appeared to be reading every word.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he would hand his notes to the hon. and gallant Member.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is a well-established Rule of the House that a Member may refer to notes in order to refresh his memory, but he must not read his speech.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that at the close of his speech he would hand his notes to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if lie wished to have them, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would then be able to see whether he had been reading his speech or not. As a matter of fact, he had not read a single sentence except what was contained in the Report of the Committee, and he was going to show from the Report that an improper use had been made of a portion of the funds in the hands of the City Corporation. As he had pointed out, there had been an expenditure of £19,550 by the Committee which was appointed by the Corporation to examine into the question of the extension of municipal government to London. Of that sum £14,139 was expended in 1884, and it was expended in a very remarkable way. It was expended in circulating pamphlets, and there were some very remarkable pamphlets circulated. For instance, every vestryman in London received a pamphlet of 89 pages, entitled Centralisation knocked into a cocked hat, or Firth dissected, and this was paid for by the City Corporation. Some of the money was expended in a movement which suddenly grew up in favour of obtaining Charters for various London constituencies. This movement was conducted in so subtle a manner as to deceive even the very elect, for the First Lord of the Treasury attended a Charter meeting at Westminster in connection with which more than £50 were spent for the purpose of providing an audience. The statement with regard to the Greenwich Charter was of a still more remarkable character. The Committee endeavoured to get some evidence in regard to that expenditure, but they were told that all the documents had been destroyed. In answer, however, to several questions, it was admitted that money was paid to induce persons to promote the Charter.

  1633
  A considerable sum was paid for getting up Petitions; but, perhaps, the most remarkable phase the position assumed was the establishment of associations apparently bonâ fide for the purpose of obstructing reform. Six associations were established, and the City spent a large sum in advertising their proceedings, £2,341 having been spent in advertisements only in the course of two months. The Committee very naturally reported that this expenditure was extravagant and excessive. The particular matter which led to the appointment of the Committee was specially inquired into—namely, a grant to a particular association of a sum of £3,950. This money was paid to the City Solicitor, and paid by him into his banking account, whence it was drawn out in cash and paid to other agents. For some reason or other no copy of the cash account in connection with these items had been produced. Probably, it was thought that the matter would never come within the public knowledge, although, as a matter of fact, it did leak out. Some remarkable evidence was given as to conferences being called. At one of them only five men attended, although the conference had been largely advertised. Evidence was given of meetings having been held at which the secretary admitted everyone who presented himself, and all who attended were paid. The chairman, the various speakers, and the movers of amendments, it would appear, were always paid. The promoters of the anti-reform movement even arranged some meettings purporting to be in favour of reform; but it was carefully arranged that there should be a majority on the other side. One great meeting, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler) had spoken, was held in the Guildhall. That meeting, described as one of bankers and merchants, was alluded to in the appendix to the Report of the Select Committee in one single line, "130 men at 5s., £32 10 s." That was a meeting held within the sacred precincts of Guildhall; but it was stated that the City Solicitor expressed an opinion that 5s. was too much to give to each man for attending a Guildhall meeting. There was a good deal of evidence given as to the character of the associations which were established, and the Committee
  1634
  reported with respect to this matter as follows:—
  "Your Committee further consider the system of subsidising so-called political associations, such as the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Protection Association, to have been improper on the part of a public body. The practice of placing corporate funds at the disposal of irresponsible and unknown persons was calculated to mislead Parliament by the appearance of an active and organized public opinion which might in reality have no existence. The improper use of a portion of the funds derived from the City estate under the authority of the Special Committee of the Corporation has been proved."
  It would, however, appear, from the City statement, that the Corporation regarded the Report of the Committee as an acquittal. He would not quarrel with them upon that matter, but he confessed that it did not strike him as an acquittal. In his opinion, the Corporation ought to be put under the same statutory control as other Corporations, because the course they had pursued in regard to the presentation of Petitions to that House, and in respect of other operations—such as their opposition to the Bill of 1884—were matters of public notoriety. He would give another illustration in justification of his assertion that those who lived in London had the right to object to be governed by a Corporation which made such an improper use of the City money as this Corporation had undoubtedly done. The case had come under his own notice. In the year 1885 he was a Member of the Telephone Committee of that House. That Committee reported on the 12th of May. On the 21st of May, in the Common Council, a question was put by an inquiring member of the name of Sly, as to whether the Streets Committee proposed to spend Whitsuntide in Paris, and there was great difficulty in extracting an answer. In the end, an answer was extracted, and it was to the effect that the Streets Committee were going to see the telephone wires in Paris themselves, because it would cost a great deal more to employ experts. Moreover, it was said that the Parliamentary Committee would not take second-hand evidence. The result was that on the 22nd of May, 1885, the Streets Committee of the Corporation, at a cost of £500, went to Paris to see the telephone system in operation there, in order that they might give evidence before a Select

  1635
  Committee, which had already reported 10 days before. it was suggested that it was desirable to continue the expenditure of the money of the Corporation for the general public interest. It was contended that audited. accounts were periodically supplied. He held one of those accounts in his hand, and it afforded another illustration of the way in which the Corporation dealt with these matters. He found that in connection with the matter affecting the whole of the police area over which the Coal and Wine Dues were collected, a sum of £600 had been expended in visiting the boundaries of the coal and wine area. It would appear that last year a sum of £5,000 was expended in refreshments for the Committee, in addition to which a considerable sum was expended upon trips up the river in an ancient barge, called The Maria Wood. If everything done over every square mile was to be done at the same rate of expenditure, the feeding of Committees alone would cost a sum of £250,000 sterling. All he maintained was that whether this expenditure was sanctioned by long precedent and usage or not, it ought to be made a matter of the same statutory control as other Corporations. He had only one word more to say in respect of this question, and he would then cease to trouble the House. The Corporation had published an account of their good works. He had never denied that the Corporation had done some good works; but that fact by no means constituted a sufficient answer to his case. He had never said that they were unrighteous altogether, and he regretted that they e should have found it necessary to go back as far as the 17th century in order to show what noble work they had performed, and how well it bad been done. The Corporation said they had done much more, and had done it better than the Metropolitan Board of Works. Among other works, they set forth that they had expended £20,000 upon the purification of the Thames. Yes; but the Metropolitan Board of Works had not spent a sum of £20,000 in showing that their work had been done properly. It was suggested that the Corporation expended money for charitable purposes. That was beyond all doubt They maintained an excellent library, as he himself knew. Further, the
  1636
  Corporation claimed that it was their business to discharge the duties of national hospitality. He agreed with that view to a large extent, but the Resolution did not propose that there should be no more cakes and ale, and no more hospitality to anybody. In the 28th section of the Bill of 1884 it was proposed that the Corporation of London, which was to be a larger body, or at any rate was to possess a larger jurisdiction, should have the power of entertaining strangers, and conferring the freedom of the City upon distinguished persons; and, further, that the Corporation should be entitled to contribute to charitable objects, such as education and in providing schools, and that it should have power to institute and defend legal proceedings for the protection of the interests of the City. Therefore, the propositions contained in that Bill covered the whole ground of objection which the City took in this part of their statement. He admitted that the Corporation—or somebody in their stead—should have the right to entertain hospitably people who came from a distance; but even that right ought to be under some control. Not long ago the City gave a banquet and a ball, on which the sum of £903 was spent by a Corporation on menu cards and ball tickets, and £145 on gloves, perfumery, and hair-brushes. Surely, such sums were far too large, and would never be incurred by a reformed Corporation which was placed under statutory restrictions. If Her Majesty's Government proposed next year to deal with this question of the government of the City in the sense of putting it on the same lines as other Corporations, he thought he should be justified in withdrawing the Resolution; but if the Government had no proposal to make in regard to the matter, then he would venture to suggest that his proposition might be fairly conceded that the City of London should be placed on the same lines as other Municipal Corporations. At present there was no power to prevent the Corporation from doing the things which he had pointed out; and, unfortunately, a Corporate Body frequently did things which a man in an individual capacity would never dream of doing. Lord Coke said, 300 years ago—"Corporations cannot commit treason, or be outlawed, or excommunicated, for

  1637
  they have no souls." This expenditure, however, could be controlled, and he maintained that it would be for the advantage of the people of London and for the Corporation itself that the expenditure of the City should be placed under the same statutory restrictions as had been successfully imposed in the the case of every other Corporation in the Kingdom. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion; and he was very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) had brought the matter before the House. He failed to see why the inquiry which took place last year had not been followed up by some action on the part of Parliament. In regard to the Motion which he had brought before the House last year, and the inquiry which subsequently took place as to the conduct of the Corporation with reference to the Bill for its reform, every statement he had made had been verified by the Report of the Committee. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) at first characterized his charges as anonymous tittle tattle. It was, however, a singular fact that the Inquiry conducted upstairs, by very able Members of the House, proved that every statement he had made was substantially true. He had been aware of the responsibility he incurred when he introduced the subject, and when he mentioned the fact that £19,530 10 s. 10 d. had been expended by the committee appointed by the Corporation to examine into the question of the extension of municipal government to London, it was proved that he was correct, even to the 10 s. 10 d. Some hours were spent by the Corporation, when before the Committee, in trying to prove that at least £200 might be struck off that bill; but he thought the House would agree with him that even if £200 had been struck off, he had fairly proved his case before the Committee. But, as a matter of fact, the £200 were retained, notwithstanding all that was said and done; and it stood in the Report of the Committee that all the items he had mentioned were accurate. One paragraph contained in the Report deserved to be quoted. It stated—
  "The items are correctly given in the Memorandum furnished by Mr. Bowen, and printed in the Appendix."
  1638
  That Memorandum was the report in Hansard of the statements he had made in the House. The Committee went on to say—
  "Your Committee have gone through every item, and found them all debited to the City fund."
  He wished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City to that fact, because he had himself described the statements that were made as "anonymous tittle-tattle," although he was a member of the special committee of the Corporation, had attended its sittings on many occasions, and ought to have known what was being expended by the Corporation. Although the hon. Baronet characterized the statements as "anonymous tittle-tattle," it was distinctly stated by the Select Committee that, as far as the City accounts were concerned, every item had been carefully identified. There was another statement in the Report which deserved to be quoted, especially as there were some hon. Members who sat upon the Select Committee present in the House. The Committee stated in their Report—
  "The classification of items was, on the whole, accurately summarized by Mr. Howell in his speech in the House of Commons."
  The words of the Committee were "on the whole." He should have thought that the Committee, after having identified every item, might have left out that particular expression "on the whole," because it was not only "on the whole," but every individual item brought before the House in his speech had been traced and identified before the Select Committee. He would recall to the House the terms of his Motion last year, because he desired distinctly to show the position in which he stood in regard to the matter. In the course of his speech on that occasion he had never once used the term "malversation." He had carefully avoided that term, because he knew that it was a technical term, and one that was very difficult indeed to substantiate. Unfortunately it dropped into the Resolution subsequently proposed, and, therefore, he had to take, and did take, the responsibility for the use of the term. He was quite aware that the Committee had exonerated the City Corporation from malversation. Very well, he accepted that exoneration; but, after all, the

  1639
  Committee itself showed that a large amount of money had been spent wrongly, and he was perfectly satisfied with that result, notwithstanding the fact that the Select Committee exonerated the City from the charge of malversation, so far as the technical use of that term was concerned. He had certainly never meant to fasten a charge of malversation upon the City Committee, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City knew very well that in the statement he made to the House he declined to fasten upon the Committee as a whole, or any individual Member of it, any charge of a criminal nature. What he maintained then, and maintained now, was that a large amount of the public money belonging to the City had been employed in a manner in which it ought not to have been employed, and in that respect the Select Committee had supported his statement. He had asserted in his speech that a considerable sum of money was spent in getting up bogus movements. He would ask the House, and any hon. Member on either side of the House who had read the Report of the Committee and the evidence given before the Committee, whether it was not absolutely proved up to the hilt that bogus movements were got up and paid for by the City funds for the purpose of influencing the decision of the House. But, although hon. Members as sensible and business men must have been aware that these bogus movements might have been got up for a particular purpose, they did not know that the agitation was to be followed up by action of a much more serious character—namely, the manufacture of bogus Petitions. Hon. Members would, perhaps, remember a curious and somewhat solemn scene which was enacted in the House when a youth was reprimanded at the Bar of the House for the part he had taken in regard to those Petitions. What he maintained was that instead of reprimanding that youth, the men who were themselves responsible, who had hired him and paid him for his services, ought to have been reprimanded, and something more. All that the Resolution asked was that in the future the public money should be expended in such a way as to reflect credit and honour upon the municipality which expended it. He did not think that that was asking very
  1640
  much. The Corporation of the City of London certainly deserved to be reformed more than any other Corporation in the Kingdom. It required reformation at the time the Municipal Corporations Act was passed more than any other Corporation in the land, and certainly it required it no less now than it did then. If any Corporation had ever spent money in a corrupt way, if he might use the term not in an offensive but in a modified sense, that Corporation was the City of London. He used the word "corrupt" to cover, at any rate, the bogus movements to which he had referred, and which were alluded to in the Report of the Select Committee; he used the term "corrupt" to show in what way the money belonging to the Corporation of the City of London was spent, tens of thousands of forged signatures having been sent into that House for the purpose of influencing the decision of Parliament. He said to the honour and credit of the Corporation of London that it had a history in many particulars of which it had a right to be proud, and, therefore, it ought to be the first to welcome such a reformation as would put it on a par, at any rate, with all the other and more healthy municipalities of the United Kingdom. His desire was that the Corporation of the City of London should be a Corporation worthy of its position and worthy of its great name. He wished to see that Corporation expend its vast funds in such a manner that the expenditure could not be called in question in that House, but in a way that would redound to the honour and credit of the City. Instead of striving to retard the day when it must be brought under the operation of the Municipal Corporations Act, the Corporation should be the first to request the House to place it under the provisions of that law. He called upon the Government, especially now that they were doing something for the reform of local government in the country, to do something with regard to the Corporation of the City of London. He called upon the Government to assist hon. Members on that side of the House in endeavouring to purify the Corporation of the City of London, and bring some kind of influence to bear upon it, so that the vast sums of money committed to its care should, in future, be expended on worthy objects. He sup-

  1641
  ported the Motion of his hon. Friend because he believed that it would be for the advantage of this great City. Not of the City of London merely that covered the one square mile which had been alluded to, but that larger City, that greater London which they had to deal with, that London comprising 4,000,000 of inhabitants over which the Lord Mayor and Corporation ought to feel pride in governing. He asked that the Government should take some steps, either in connection with the Local Government Bill, or by some independent measure, to bring the Corporation of the City of London within the Municipal Corporations Act, as was proposed in the Resolution. He had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution which had been moved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, without delay, to place the expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London under similar statutory restrictions to those to which other corporations in the Kingdom are subject."—(Mr. Firth.)
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, the hon. Member for Dundee had, in the course of the last fortnight, substituted an entirely different Motion for that which he had originally placed upon the Order Book of the House, and which had remained there for something like four weeks. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman had in the interval read the Report on which his original Motion was to have been based, and finding that he could not make good out of that Report the very violent terms in which it was framed he had suddenly withdrawn it, and had now placed on the Notice Paper and moved that afternoon a totally different issue. It seemed to be rather a reckless and unfair way of making an accusation against either a public body or an individual to put a Notice on the Paper, and leave it there for four weeks, charging the Corporation with scandalous and corrupt expenditure, and then, after reading the Report and finding that he could not make good his accusations, to withdraw the Motion and substitute a totally different one. Why had not the hon. Member for Dundee stood to his guns? It was because he knew that on the face of the Report he could not make good the terms of his original Motion. If the hon. Member
  1642
  had never intended to take the opinion of the House on that Motion, he ought not to have allowed it to stand for four weeks on the Order Book. The hon. Member asked the House that afternoon to submit the management of the City estate to the restrictions of the Municipal Reform Acts of 1835 and 1882. There was in the City, as most hon. Members were aware, a trust estate, the disposition of which was strictly bound down by trust deeds which confined it to City purposes. There was, besides, an estate which brought in an income of £350,000 called the City Cash, which was spent at the direction of the Corporation. He would here observe that the Corporation were not answerable at all for the expenditure of that money to the House, but to their constituents, the ratepayers who elected them annually by a most democratic suffrage. What he wanted more particularly to impress upon hon. Gentlemen was that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee, if carried, would have precisely the reverse effect of that which he imagined the hon. Gentleman and the Members of the Municipal Reform League intended. Perhaps he did the hon. Member and his coadjutors injustice—perhaps he misconstrued their motives; but he had always imagined that the object of the Municipal Reform League was to get at the coffers of the City, or, at any rate, to diffuse the revenue of the Corporation over a wider area. But the effect of this Motion and the effect of applying the restrictions of the Municipal Reform Acts to the City estate would have exactly the opposite result. The effect of applying them to the City Cash and making the Corporation trustees instead of owners would be to confine the expenditure of the City Cash strictly within the limits of that celebrated "square mile," in which the distempered imagination of the Municipal Reform League had pictured a perpetual carnival. Under the Municipal Reform Act of 1882, by Sections 143 and 149 the whole of the income of municipal boroughs, whether derived from real or personal property, was carried to what was called the borough fund, and out of that fund was paid the expense of preparing the Burgess List, of maintaining the corporate buildings, and of defraying other expenses incurred under the direction of the Council for the public

  1643
  benefit of the inhabitants and the improvement of the borough. Now, the City was about to be made a Quarter Sessions borough, and the only effect of applying to the City estate the restrictions of the Municipal Reform Act would be absolutely to limit the expenditure of the present to the area of what was called the City proper. Was that the object of the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Municipal Reform League? It was certainly not his (Mr. Baumann's) object, nor was it the object of hon. Gentlemen who sat around him. As a Metropolitan Member, he frankly admitted that he was rather anxious under the new system of Local Government that the County Council for London should get some assistance from the City Cash of the Corporation, and he hoped that in the future the City Cash would continue to contribute as in the past to public schemes for the advantage of the Metropolis. The hon. Member had made very light of the charitable expenditure of the Corporation, but he would like to ask who it was who purchased and obtained for the London public the use of Epping Forest. The City Corporation out of the City estate spent more than £33,000 in fighting 12 Chancery suits, and in buying out the Lords of the Manor in Epping Forest, and it was that expenditure which established the rights of the London public to use that forest. Then again, the City Corporation, out of the City Cash, had purchased and presented to the public Burnham Beeches; they had, in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works, freed the bridges over the Thames and erected Holborn Viaduct, and they had made themselves liable for the construction of the new Tower Bridge over the Thames; and the City Corporation, out of the City Cash, were, at this moment, spending over £6,000 a-year for port sanitary regulations over an area extending from the Nore to Staines. He maintained that these were all objects of public utility and advantage on which the City Cash of the Corporation had been expended. But if the House adopted the present Resolution and imposed the restrictions of the Municipal Reform Acts upon the City estate in future, all expenditure of that kind would be prevented, and the City Cash would be restricted to the area of the City proper. Turning to the Report of the Select Committee, he really
  1644
  wondered the hon. Member for Dundee had had the hardihood to refer to that Report, for a more crushing reply to the attacks made upon the Corporation last year than that Report it was difficult to imagine. The Report said that the question of malversation or whether the City had a legal right to expend the City Cash for the purpose of defending its own existence was one for a Court of Law. The hon. Member for Dundee said that he was not responsible for the word "malversation" in the reference to the Committee. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) was responsible for it, however, and the reply of the Committee was that the charge of malversation had not been established. In the final paragraph of the Report, the Committee said that in their opinion the charge of malversation had not been established, but that an improper use of a portion of the funds belonging to the City estate had been proved. That there had been an improper, foolish, and ridiculous expenditure of City Cash, he did not suppose that anybody would be found to deny. He did not believe that the hon. Members for the City would deny it. He quite concurred in the finding of the Committee; and in looking over some of the items nothing had surprised him more than to find the astonishingly generous patronage of literature in which the Corporation indulged. He found, for instance, on page 7, that Mr. Lea, as the author of a pamphlet, had received £50. £50 for a pamphlet on the Corporation of London! Why, he believed that that was more than an ex-Cabinet Minister got for an article on the gods of Olympus. Then he found that very versatile gentleman, Mr. Frank Hugh O'Donnell, formerly a Member of the House, contrived a double debt to pay, for having denounced the Corporation by day as devoted to the consumption of turtle and Madeira, he wrote a pamphlet in their defence by night, for which he received 40 guineas, the Corporation evidently appreciating the maxim that a soft answer in the shape of a large cheque turneth away wrath. Then Dr. Charles Mackay, the compiler, he believed, of a book called 1,001 Gems of Poetry, received 50 guineas. No doubt a poem on the hon. Baronet and the Corporation must be a gem of purest ray serene. All this expendi-

  1645
  ture every one admitted was very foolish, extravagant, and absurd; but surely it was not criminal or wicked, and he was entitled to ask who were the accusers of the Corporation in this matter? First, there was the hon. Member for Dundee who had registered an oath—he was afraid not in Heaven—to destroy the Corporation, and to divide its substance among the members of the Municipal Reform League. It was amusing to watch the deadly animus with which the hon. Member hunted the Corporation with mortal Amendments through clauses of the Local Government Bill. He really thought that upon any question in which the Corporation of London was concerned the hon. Member might be put aside as a fanatic and a zealot. Then there was the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), who, he was afraid, could hardly be regarded as a zealot, because it appeared from the evidence of the hon. Member for Dundee before the Committee that at the time of the transactions complained of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green was the organizer of the Municipal Reform League, and was receiving remuneration for his services. Therefore, he did not think the hon. Member was exactly the person to lead the attack against the Corporation of London in this matter. Then there were the two hon. Members for Northampton. With regard to the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), perhaps the hon. Member would forgive him if he said his blade was somewhat blunted by constant and indiscriminate hacking at everybody and everything; while the prestige of the hon. Gentleman's Colleague, the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), as a public accuser, had been a little dimmed by a recent decision in a Court of Law. He believed the hon. Member had promised to prove most astonishing things against the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, and he wondered whether the evidence of the hon. Member would be of the same kind as that by which he attempted to prove his charge that Lord Salisbury had subsidized rioters in Trafalgar Square. It was perfectly absurd and ridiculous to see these hon. Gentleman turning up their eyes in pious horror at the idea of packed meetings in London, as if they had never heard of "Dilke's Lambs," or of the 12 "honest but
  1646
  powerful "men described by the Report as constituting the body guard of the hon. Member for Dundee. Why the hon. Member for Dundee was the oldest hand at packing a meeting in London, and the most successful. There was no crime in packing a meeting that he knew of. It was a melancholy truth that all the agitation about the whole question of the reform of London Government on both sides, on the side of the Municipal Reform League and on that of the Corporation, with their hired stewards and Petitions at street corners—it was a melancholy truth that there was no real genuine opinion in London at all. With the exception of a few interested parties on both sides, and a few mercenaries, he was afraid that the large majority of Londoners did not care a row of pins whether they had one municipality or 10 or 20. When there was no genuine public opinion on a question of this nature there was always an irresistible temptation for interested parties to create a spurious public opinion by that kind of agitation which could always be bought for money, and both the Corporation and the Municipal Reform League had succumbed to that temptation. They had both been guilty of conducting an agitation which he ventured to say would have been impossible in any other town in the Kingdom. The only difference between the Municipal Reform League and the Corporation of the City of London was that the Corporation, being a quasi-public body, presented an easy mark for attack by a Motion of this kind. Three times the Legislature had refused on three historical occasions to submit the Corporation of the City of London to the restrictions of the Municipal Reform Acts. Lord John Russell, in introducing the Municipal Reform Act in 185, made no allusion whatever to the City of London, and when he was afterwards questioned on the subject by a Member of the House of Commons he said, that he would introduce a separate Bill for the purpose of dealing with the City of London. But he never did so, and, as far as could be gathered from Hansard, no subsequent allusion was made to the City of London. Then there was a Bill passed in 1872, called Leeman's Act, dealing with the expenditure of borough funds, and promoting and opposing Bills upstairs. The Party opposite was in power at that time, and for a second

  1647
  time the City of London was left outside the operation of the Municipal Reform Acts. Finally, there was a Municipal Reform Act of 1882, a consolidating Act introduced again by the Party opposite when they were in power, and for the third time the City of London was left out of the operation of these restrictive Acts. That being so, he asked the House, seeing that on three occasions the Legislature had refused to include the City within the purview of these Acts, not to place the restrictions proposed upon the expenditure of the City estate. He asked the House not to consent to the Motion at the instigation and interested suggestion of a disappointed rival, and to the general prejudice of the Metropolitan public.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he had listened attentively to the debate, and could not altogether congratulate the Corporation upon the line of defence adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell (Mr. Baumann). He (Sir George Trevelyan) had carefully taken a note of the points of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would proceed to deal with each of them in a very few words before he came to the substance of the Motion. In the first place the hon. and learned Gentleman charged the hon. and learned Gentleman the
  Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) with having altered his Motion. Now, he was bound to say, that he had not read the Motion until it appeared on the Paper that day; but taking the description given of it, by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Motion in its original shape charged the Corporation with having been guilty of scandalous and corrupt expenditure, after the way in which the expenditure had been described he could not see that those epithets, if they had been applied to it, would have been very much too strong. The next point of the hon. and learned Member was that if this Motion were carried, and the City funds were brought under statutory restrictions, those funds could no longer be applied to anything but the absolute purposes of the City. He did not think there was anything in that argument. If the City funds were to be brought under statutory restrictions, it was obvious that that must be done by
  1648
  statute. Whatever scope Parliament wished to give to the Corporation in the public spirit and generous use they made of their funds, that scope would undoubtedly be given by the statute. At all events, when the expenditure of their funds was brought under statutory restrictions, there would be an end of the expenditure, which he would not call scandalous, but the nature of which he would describe in the course of his remarks. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman took to making fun of the Report and evidence laid before the House by the Select Committee; but he (Sir George Trevelyan) was inclined to think that this was a matter which must be met with something more than jokes. It was by no means a laughing matter, and he did not think it would be a laughing matter in the estimation of the great majority of the inhabitants of London. As a Londoner who had lived for two-thirds of his life as an inhabitant of the Metropolis, he protested against the description which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given of his own constituents and those of many other hon. Members of the House. The only defence of the Corporation made by the hon. and learned Member was that he had really nothing to say in its favour. He allowed that the expenditure, even in his eyes, was ridiculous, improper, and foolish; but he added that there was so little public spirit in London on the question of Municipal Reform, that the Metropolis deserved such a Corporation as it had got.
  MR. BAUMANN: I did not say that.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, the hon. and learned Member had said that there was very little public spirit in London.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not say that. I said that on the question of Municipal Reform, there was no genuine public opinion in London.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he would interpret that to mean if there was no interest in Municipal Reform in a great City like London, there was a sad lack of public spirit among the inhabitants. He (Sir George Trevelyan) did not belong to the Party which commanded the majority of the representation of London, but the reason why his Party was beaten at the Elections in London was that a genuine public opin-

  1649
  ion did exist there, and that genuine public opinion was Conservative. It was quite time to take this question up in the House of Commons. Half a century ago Parliament proceeded on certain lines. They reformed all the Corporations of the Kingdom except London. What led to this reform was the abuse of corporate funds; and therefore, in every town except the City of London these funds were placed in such a position that Parliament might have a supervision in regard to them, and every Member of Parliament had a right to know how every penny arising from municipal estates was expended, except in the single case of the City of London. There could be only two adequate reasons why the property of the Corporation of London should be excepted. One was that the amount was so small that it was not worth regarding. There were only four leading towns in which the income from corporate property reached five figures. In Bristol it was £24,000 in Liverpool £61,000, in Sheffield £17,000, and in Newcastle £24,000. But the annual income of the city of London derived from municipal property was upwards of £350,000. The only other reason for excepting the City which would hold water was that its property was managed with greater propriety and carefulness than that of any other Corporation. How the £350,000 was spent behind the scenes we had no means of judging. We had no Parliamentary supervision of control. All we could have was a side-light occasionally thrown in. Such a side-light we had now. There had been an inquiry which the City, through the mouth of its Town Clerk, had pronounced fair and impartial; and the result made it plain that the standard of public morality and the sense of responsibility in dealing with public money were not as high in the City as he was thankful to believe they were in all the open Corporations. A great deal had been made of the fact that the charge of malversation had not been proved. He supposed that meant that the Corporation in what they did were not acting in an illegal manner. No, they were acting in a perfectly legal manner; and that was the reason why the matter was brought before Parliament. If they were acting illegally it would have been brought before another Court. The report of the Committee
  1650
  was that, in view of the whole circumstances of the case, the charge of malversation had not been sustained, but that "improper use of a portion of the funds derived from the City's estate had been proved." If that would not justify the intervention of Parliament, he did not know what would. Immense sums of public money had been spent in falsifying and doctoring public opinion. He was not going to make any personal charges. The Committee allowed that the expenditure of a very large sum on getting up petitions was morally as well as legally in the right of the Corporation; the more so as it was alleged that the object was to ascertain that only genuine ratepayers had signed the petition; and they said that, although the expenditure on advertisements was extravagant and excessive, there were no serious evils connected with it which it was necessary for the House to take cognizance of. But they added—
  "Your Committee are also of opinion that no proper supervision was maintained over the agents employed by the Corporation, and that much of the money which passed through their hands was used for improper and indefensible purposes."
  The Committee also considered the subsidies to so-called political associations, such as the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Protection Association, were improper, and they condemned the practice of placing funds at the disposal of irresponsible persons. The action of the committee of the Corporation in sending bodies of men in great numbers to form public meetings and to pass resolutions which would appear to proceed from the great body of the unpaid citizens of London was wholly indefensible. When the advocates of reform called public meetings, a great number of those hirelings were sent to them, and that important officer, the City Remembrancer, was cognizant of such infamous proceedings. That officer said there was one meeting in Kensington Town Hall to which they did undoubtedly send a large number of people. It was advertised as an open meeting to discuss the question of Municipal Reform, and Sir Charles Dilke was to be chairman and the principal speaker, and enormous numbers of hired people were sent from all parts of London to falsify the opinion of that meeting. The dangers of such a course were so obvious that he could not imagine how a respon-

  1651
  sible Body like the Corporation of London could have sanctioned it for a moment. Consider what must be the class of human beings who took shillings and half-crowns night after night, and who lived in idleness during the day and took this money at night for such a purpose, and think what chance was there that the business of public meetings could be carried on by them in the manner in which they were usually conducted by respectable citizens? Actually, sovereigns had to be paid at one of their own meetings, because such a row was made that they could not go on with the business until their own hirelings had been induced by higher pay to go away. What were the sums spent on this precious machinery? Upwards of £3,000 was paid to a Mr. Wragg alone, who got £500 for himself, and the business of this man was to get up sham meetings in defence of the Corporation. A sum of nearly £1,300 was also paid to a Mr. Stoneham, upwards of £1,600 to a Mr. Palmer, and nearly £3,000 to a Mr. Johnson. And the Select Committee reported that in his hands the practice of which he had spoken assumed proportions which were hardly consistent with public safety. This Johnson had endeavoured to persuade a gentleman to subscribe to the Ratepayers' Defence Association, promising that if he put down his name for £100, he (Mr. Johnson) would provide the £100 out of the Corporation funds. This had been under the notice of the Committee, and one member had spoken sharply to Johnson about it. But what were they to think of the Corporation who, when they knew that this man had been guilty of this indescribable action, still continued to employ him and entrusted him with large sums of public money? It was said that this money and this machinery had been employed in counteracting the Municipal Reform League, and that that body was as bad as the Corporation. He must say he had never heard of such a case of abusing the plaintiff's attorney when you had no case of your own as the charge made by the hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell against the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth). These charges had been so vague and were put forward in a manner so unworthy of this important
  1652
  and serious debate that he would prefer to leave them alone. Parliament bad no cognizance of the Municipal Reform. League, which was a private body, and one with which they had nothing to do; but the Corporation of London was a public Body, and in the disposal of its funds and the method in which it disposed of them, he maintained that it had forfeited the privilege, which up to this time it had retained, of being the only Corporation whose corporate property was not subject to the purview of Parliament. It might be said that the Corporation of London had not been in fault, and that they expressed regret when the matter was brought to their notice. He was sorry to say that that was not the case. In February last there had been a crowded meeting of the Common Council, and the Town Clerk had made a report which practically endorsed all the proceedings of the committee of the Corporation. That report had been adopted almost unanimously, with one single exception. It was stated in the Paper which had been laid before them that the City of London expended very great sums on objects of public use and munificence. Nobody believed that the Corporation spent £350,000 a-year exclusively on such purposes as they saw stated in the report of the committee. That was not the question; the point was that great sums of money had been expended upon improper objects through improper agents, and whether or not it was the duty of Parliament to do that which the Corporation had so clearly failed to do—namely, to show that they would have no longer the responsibility of allowing such a state of things to go on. In his opinion, the duty of Parliament was plain in this matter. When an instance, whether small or great, was brought before them, in which either a public man or a public Body had been guilty of improper conduct in relation to public money, then, in the highest interests of the country, they could not afford to pass it over. If they made light of this and said that public money might be spent on these objects and through these hands, then they confirmed by Parliamentary sanction an example which every municipality in the country and all the new authorities which the Government were going to set up would be justified in following. This was not a Party question;

  1653
  this sort of question never was a Party one in that House. In a matter involving personal conduct hon. Members on both sides of the House had always come forward and taken the side of purity and public spirit, and in this case they were bound to take action, because as a collective Body they had appointed the Select Committee of last year, and as a collective Body, therefore, they were absolutely bound to take cognizance of the revelations which had come out before the Committee. He ventured to say that in passing the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend they would be passing the mildest censure that could be passed upon conduct which was absolutely indefensible.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to point out that the discussion of that evening had in no way been initiated by himself. He had not had until that evening any communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Firth). He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had last year put upon the Paper a Notice of Motion on this subject even in stronger terms than that upon which the House was now asked to express an opinion. The Government were then desirous of finding a night for the discussion, and were repeatedly pressed to give effect to that desire; but they were unable to do so, and the matter was, therefore, not discussed last Session, through no fault of his. He had expected that some comment might be made on himself if the present discussion arose; but he hardly expected that the comment would be of the special character of that with which he had been honoured by the hon. and learned Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell (Mr. Baumann). He would repeat the hon. and learned Member's words of challenge, and deal with them exactly. The hon. and learned Member asked—"If the evidence of the hon. Member for Northampton against the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) would be of the same character as that which he brought forward against the Marquess of Salisbury of subsidizing agitators?" To that question he replied—"It will be of exactly the same nature." He had traced cheques in both instances, and he had traced them to the same individuals. Messrs. Kelly and Peters
  1654
  had been entrusted, as he had not expected they would have been entrusted by any wise man, with a work of charity; and, as the result showed, they were entrusted with a work of dishonesty. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) was, of course, bound by the evidence of the Prime Minister given in the witness-box; but he could not help wondering how that the noble Marquess lived so much out of the world as to be ignorant of the rascally character of the men whom he entrusted with money whose character was perfectly well known in London. Lord Salisbury stated that he was aware that they were getting up a meeting in Trafalgar Square; and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was naturally misled, knowing whose hands the cheques had reached. One of the officials of the City of London knew the men; for, in conversation, he said at once—"Oh, you mean Kelly and Peters;" but it appeared that they had a better character in other circles than he knew of, and so it turned out that he was in error as to the application of one cheque out of six. That being so, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell would detract very much from what he was pleased to call his prestige as a public accuser by the remarks he had used, and which he could not in that House characterize by the language which he thought applicable to it. He would now examine the matter he had to deal with; and it was suggested that the Report of the Committee which, it was said, showed the charges he had made in that House—the full responsibility for which he accepted—were not proven. The hon. and learned Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell, who could certainly read, had been good enough to say there was no charge of wicked payment of money. But what did he think of the absolutely fraudulent payment—admittedly fraudulent, for there was no cross-examination of the witness—of £3,000 with the knowledge of the Committee? It was only just to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) to say that he accepted his word fully that he knew nothing about the matter; but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) could not know that when be addressed him at the first meeting. There had been a great deal of difficulty in getting evidence, some of which, when it was ob-

  1655
  tained, was of a very peculiar character. Why, cheques were signed for thousands of pounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had referred to the sum of £1,287 most scandalously paid by the City Committee to one of their own members, who was employed in getting up divisions at meetings. If that was not scandalous the word had no meaning. It was said that the Committee stated that there was no malversation. That was true; and he did not want to say one word with regard to the Committee, which listened carefully to the evidence, except that, having stated that no conclusive judgment on the question of malversation could be arrived at except in a Court of Law, it was a pity they raised the question at all. For his own part, he thought the action of the City Committee was so much like malversation that he did not know in what way it differed from it. On page 193 of the Report it would be found that he asked the witness questions as to the list of monies which he produced, and the reply was that he did not know in whose handwriting it was. He continued the conversation, and ended in obtaining from this frank witness the statement that he had dictated the list the night before to a confidential clerk who had been in his employment for many years and with whose handwriting he was familiar, and he accounted for saying that he did not know in whose handwriting the list was by the statement that he had forgotten the handwriting of this man. After this it did not lie well in the mouth of the hon. and learned Member for Peckham to say there was nothing in the charge of malversation. If this was not wilful perjury, and if this kind of thing was to be tolerated in the City of London, he was bound to say that it would not be considered maintainable by anyone outside who wished to preserve a reputation for truthfulness. The Report was very partially read by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had defended the City authorities; but it had in some of its points been so completely dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow that he need not trouble the House by
  1656
  reading from it any further. As he had said, he accepted to the fullest the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for London that he did not know; but he must plead in self-defence not only that he was present at 10 meetings when cheques were drawn for large amounts, but he had himself spoken of his own knowledge of the association which was financed to the extent of £3,000, and which clearly never had any existence at all. The whole thing was practically a fraud, the result of conspiracy between the late City Solicitor and the man who concocted it; and it would not do to say that this was not true because there was not a word in cross-examination of the man who swore to it. In order to avoid the tracing of the money, they had gone to the length of changing the notes into gold and re-changing them into notes. Luckily, he (Mr.Bradlaugh) had been able to trace some of the notes; and from the new Solicitor to the City they had got a book in which every one of the payments were traceable, which, owing to the notes having been changed in the manner described, would have been otherwise exceedingly difficult. That course could not have been taken by anyone who knew that he was spending the money honestly; and although he
  accepted to the fullest the statement of the hon. Baronet that he thought the kind of warfare engaged in was justifiable, he asked the House to excuse him if he thought the transaction was scandalous and malversatory, and for saying that this was still the proper language to apply to it. It was almost a pity that this question could not have been discussed without personal comment; but the House would do him the justice to say that what had passed was not of his provoking, and that he was bound to make some answer to what had been said with regard to himself by the hon. and learned Member for Peckham. There was not one of the charges which had not been completely proved by the evidence given before the Committee; and if anyone should rise after he had sat down, and venture to repeat one phrase of his which be thought was not proven, he was ready to read chapter and verse for evidence of its truth; but until that was done he would not further occupy the time of the House.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee which inquired into the charges against the Corporation of the City of London, he thought it a pity that the House should not know the exact amount of weight in the charges. When his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) spoke of the matter as anonymous tittle-tattle, he felt sure that the House would agree that he had been misunderstood, and that what he meant to convey was that there was no name given at the time as authority for the charge. It seemed to him (Sir Joseph Bailey) that the accusation had been laid a little higher than it ought to have been. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeten Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had spoken of the estate of the Corporation as being £300,000 odd a-year, and of this being expended in an irresponsible way. But neither of those statements was exactly correct. It was true that the gross amount of the City estate was £300,000 odd; he believed it was reduced to the sum of £160,000 a-year for various outgoings. Now, out of that large expenditure £19,000 was the only amount which was called in question. The City of London Corporation found itself face to face with an organization whose one object was to make a single municipality for the City of London. He did not think it would be said by the Corporation of the City that there was no need of any reform whatever; but they were as strongly as possible opposed to the idea of one municipality for London, and they accordingly placed the matter in the hands of a special committee. He had understood the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) to say that the Committee made no report. But that was not the case. They made five reports, which were quoted in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of last year.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, the hon. Baronet had misapprehended what he said, which was that the committee had made no detailed report of their expenditure.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, it was true that they had made no detailed report of expenditure; but, at the same time, he was prepared to say that
  1658
  the whole of the items quoted in the Report of last year were traced in the public reports of the City. They wore there for everyone to see, although time details of the various items were not given. Some of the £19,000 was proved to have been expended in making inquiries at home and abroad as to the matter referred to the Committee. A large sum was expended by the Corporation in defending themselves against the organization opposed to them. They had, he believed, a perfect right to defend themselves with their own money, and that could not be malversation, because the word indicated the misapplication of something in the nature of trust—money given for one purpose and devoted to another purpose—and he thought that in the minds of most men it would be held to involve not only application to a purpose other than that intended, but fraudulent application. But although persons had a perfect right to defend themselves with their own money, there were certain things which they might not do even with their own money; and they were not to pack meetings, attack other meetings, and make meetings at which there was not a single person present honestly representing public opinion. The House should understand how far it was proved that the Corporation of the City did this. There was one large item which he was extremely surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had not pressed home. How the money was spent they did not know; they knew nothing about it, except that it was stated that if investigation were desired it might be seen by all the world. One person was concerned, as to whom he would only say that every word used on the other side was absolutely true, and of whom he hardly thought enough had been said. He was engaged by a gentleman who was a great officer of the City, who, not being alive at the time of the inquiry, was, of course, unable to say anything in his own defence. This person was engaged in January and discharged in July so that the expenditure in connection with him, which was proved absolutely up to the hilt to be improper from first to last, was incurred within six months of one year. This man Johnson did not present his account until two or three

  1659
  days before he was discharged; he took a shorthand copy of it, and that actually in the room where he was going to give it to Sir Thomas Nelson. What his motive was he (Sir Joseph Bailey) did not know, but in a short time that shorthand copy found its way into the hands of those who were attacking the Corporation. How far Johnson was acting straightforwardly by his employer he did not know; that he ought not to have been employed at all was quite certain; but, seeing that his employer was dead and could not defend himself, and seeing that the accounts were only placed before him a day or two before Johnson was discharged, he was unable to hold the Corporation responsible in this matter. Where he thought the Corporation were wrong was in not looking after their own affairs, and he was quite certain that, however little reform might be meted out to the Corporation of the City of London, it was absolutely necessary that their accounts should indicate something like a decent and proper audit. In this matter the Corporation had devolved their authority on a committee to whom they gave almost the unlimited power of spending money. That committee handed over its power to great City officers, who were themselves unable to undertake the business, and they in turn handed it over to electioneering agents, some of whom were honourable men and some of them exactly the reverse. The whole proceeding was in the nature of a political "house that Jack built." Although, in his opinion, this matter had been placed a little too high by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and although possibly they could not go the length of the Resolution on the Paper, so long as the Corporation spent its money for great purposes, he could not help thinking that the Corporation themselves would accept willingly something in the nature of reform.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he was ready to acknowledge the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) on the present occasion, who had, of his own accord, stated that he accepted his word of denial of the charges made last year. This was a Motion which he apprehended was not binding without an Act of Parliament; it was of course
  1660
  necessary that to carry out the Resolution the hon. and learned Member should bring in a Bill to be passed by this and the other House of Parliament. He did not think it was necessary to detain the House at any length, but there was one observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) with regard to the meeting over which he (Sir Robert Fowler) presided at Guildhall, to which he would refer. That meeting, whatever might be said of others, was most enthusiastic in support of the Corporation against the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the committee made any mistake with regard to the meeting it was that they thought their opponents might send men to make a disturbance, and took what they thought to be necessary precautions to prevent it. No one would dispute that the meeting was enthusiastic, and he believed the object on both sides was to ascertain the feeling of the Metropolis with regard to the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and warmly supported by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. The result of the meeting was fairly put before the Metropolis within two years afterwards at the General Election of 1885. He did not want to refer to the following Election, which might be said to have been still more decisive, but in the General Election of 1885, the issue before the country was the question of Confidence in Lord Salisbury on the one hand, and in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) on the other. The right hon. Gentleman just before the Election was the Head of a Government, one of the leading Members of which had brought in a very important Bill, and as there was no very important question before the country at that time beyond the conduct of distinguished statesmen, they might infer that this question was fairly put before the Metropolis; and the result was to send a larger number of Metropolitan Members to support Lord Salisbury as against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee was then an active Metropolitan Member, and he having been defeated at Chelsea in 1885,

  1661
  crossed the water in 1886, and contested a constituency in South London with the same result. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman being the apostle for the establishment of one great municipality for London, the result of his candidatures might very fairly be considered to show that his views with regard to the Corporation were not very popular in the Metropolis, and he ventured to think they would not be accepted by the country at large.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee of last Session, he thought that if the public opinion of the Metropolis was so decidedly in favour of the Corporation of London as the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) stated, there was all the less necessity for the Corporation to indulge in the questionable practices which had been proved against them. He desired to call the attention of the House to the utterly delusive character of the audit of the Corporation accounts. The four auditors annually appointed by the Livery signed the accounts; but it came out that they satisfied themselves with ascertaining the fact that the large sums in question had been duly voted by the Committee to be spent by the high officials of the Corporation. Those auditors did not follow the money any further. They called for no vouchers. A proper auditor would require the production of receipts, stamped and signed by the persons who actually received the money. The Remembrancer, who gave Mr. Wragg £3,000 to spend, told the committee that no one but himself even saw Mr. Wragg's report of his proceedings. It was the Select Committee that by their inquiry elicited the information as to this expenditure that would otherwise have never come to light. The chairman of the special committee of the Corporation that supplied the money declared that he never asked the officials for any detail, putting it on the footing of a contested election in which he was engaged many years ago, when he freely supplied his election agent with the money he wanted, and never thought of asking him how he spent it. The inquiry disclosed the highest degree of looseness in relation to this expenditure, and showed that the so-called audit was a delusive pro
  1662
  tection to the public; and he heartily supported the Motion before the House.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)said, that the House had now listened to an exposition of the Report in their hands by two Members of the Select Committee which considered the charges made against the Corporation of the City of London. But most hon. Members of the House—if they had the responsibility of judging upon the matters in issue—would find themselves obliged to be content with the judgment to which the Committee arrived. It was impossible to examine in detail before the House of Commons the large mass of evidence which had been given. It would, he thought, be agreed that the Committee was perfectly competent to deal with the questions before it, and that the fullest opportunity of giving evidence was offered to all interested in the matter. By the Report laid upon the Table of the House the Committee expressed their judgment upon the questions submitted to them, and by that judgment the House itself might be well content to be guided. It would be extremely unfair to the Corporation of the City of London if in that debate Members were to pick out special passages in the evidence given before the Committee. That might have been a proper course upon a real Vote of Censure upon the Corporation of the City of London, but it was by no means fair to induce Members of the House to vote on the question now upon the Paper by making accusations against certain individuals. The Committee arrived at the conclusion that there had been no malversation of funds, but that there had been improper appropriation and unjustifiable expenditure of money, which would have been just as improper and unjustifiable if it had come out of the pockets of individuals as out of the City estates of the Corporation. It must be remembered that the Committee had to report upon the matter, and they gave their own description of the transactions. They said that the employment on both sides, by the Corporation and by the Municipal Reform League, of private police was advocated as a necessity, the Metropolitan Police not being permitted to enter buildings where meetings were held. They said that the Municipal

  1663
  Reform League had an organized body of 12 men in its employment who were called municipal policemen, and similar individuals were employed by persons subsidized by the Corporation of the City of London. Both the Municipal Reform League and the various associations subsidized by the Corporation packed their own meetings to a greater or less extent, and each side attended the meetings of the other. Of course, it was a matter of great regret and shame that the political life of this country could not be carried out without resort to the employment of persons to prevent disorder. It was a melancholy thing; but whether they were in the most crowded parts of the most Radical districts, or in the most remote district of the most Tory county, it would be found that some sort of measures had to be taken in order to prevent the speakers from being interrupted. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was useless to cry "No, no!" He had not been in political life for 20 years without having learnt the absolute necessity of taking measures to protect speakers from interruption by those to whom they were opposed. ["No!"] That was the state of the case all over the country, no matter how much hon. Gentlemen might deny it, and that was the state of the case in London, for the Committee found that the Municipal Reform League packed their own meetings, and attended the meetings of the other side, while their opponents did the like. Then there was the question of the large sum of money passing into the hands of Johnson from Sir Thomas Nelson—a copy of the report rendered to Sir Thomas Nelson being kept by Johnson, and from him finding its way to the secretary of the Chelsea Liberal Club, and from him to the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth). It was hardly fair to the Corporation that an investigation should take place after the death of Sir Thomas Nelson, and that the word of the man Johnson should be taken with regard to all the matters in which he had been concerned. He (Sir Edward Clarke) was desirous of pointing out that if it were desired to bring charges of this kind and to drive them home, the original Motion should have been persisted in, when the House would have
  1664
  been able to express its judgment on the matters in question. But the course now taken, he ventured to say, was extremely unfair. Instead of a direct Motion the hon. and learned Member for Dundee placed on the Paper a Resolution to the effect that the expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London ought to be placed under statutory restrictions similar to those to which other Corporations in the Kingdom were subject. That was an innocent-looking enough form of words, but the supporters of the Motion were by it in reality asking the House to endorse the accusations against the Corporation, notwithstanding that the Committee had decided that there had been no malversation, though there had been an improper appropriation of money, but without any proof that any responsible persons in the Corporation were cognizant of these things being done. The Motion was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) upon grounds entirely inconsistent with the acceptance of the Motion itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell (Mr. Baumann)—with whose advocacy the Corporation of London had every reason to be satisfied—had, it appeared to him (Sir Edward Clarke), made an absolutely conclusive answer to the Motion. He said that the Motion, if carried out by legislation, would defeat every object which its supporters chiefly had in view. Their object was that these great funds, which for centuries had belonged to the Corporation, and which he believed had been administered to the great advantage of the people of London, and to the great credit of the Corporation, should be used not merely for the advantage of the whole Metropolis, but subject in some way to the control and authority of the whole Metropolis. That was an intelligible object which it might be reasonable to keep in view, when changes were made, as they necessarily would be made, in the government of London. But as his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, the effect of carrying out the recommendations of this Resolution by legislation would be to place the Corporation under legislative compulsion to expend the whole of its City Estate Fund on the

  1665
  small area of the City itself. Instead of going outside its own area and being able to expend money by opening Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches for the benefit of the Metropolis, it would be compelled to expend its revenues in the City itself. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division had contended that if the Corporation were placed under statutory restrictions they might make provisions in the statute to enable the Corporation to discharge those great functions for the public advantage which it now fulfilled. When Parliament came to deal with the whole question of London government, he (Sir Edward Clarke) had no doubt it would make provision—he would not say to extend the area of usefulness of the City—but would take care that those great matters which a Central Body would have to deal with should be reserved to the Corporation. That was entirely contrary to the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. It seemed to him that the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division were mutually destructive. One wanted to bring the Corporation within the recognized law as to other Corporations, while the other wanted to pass a new law. He understood the hon, and learned Member for Dundee to say that if the Government announced its intention of dealing with this question at an early time he would not press his Resolution upon the House. Her Majesty's Government had already told the House that, in their opinion, the question of London government was one to be dealt with at an early day. But the hon. and learned Member would not think it reasonable to ask him (Sir Edward Clarke) then to say anything which might limit or abridge, or be construed as limiting or abridging, the right of the Government to choose the mode in which the subject ought to be dealt with. It clearly could not be dealt with at that time as a separate matter, but must abide the decision of the House on the whole question of London government. Although the House had been informed that Her Majesty's Government looked upon this question as a subject for early consideration and legislation, it would be impossible for the Government to give any pledge on the subject. In the meantime, in his
  1666
  opinion, it would be extremely unwise of the House to pledge itself to a Resolution dealing with a small part of a large subject in a manner not involving any practical issue.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he wished to say this before the Division was taken, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was not under a correct apprehension as to the effect of his proposal. The effect would be to enable the City to give money for purposes for which it rightly gave it now. The hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted the language of the hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell (Mr. Baumann) as to what was done in the matter of the purchase of Burnham Beeches, but neither of the hon. Gentlemen had seemed to think it desirable to ascertain the correct facts. Burnham Beeches had not been bought out of the City cash, but from the Grain Duties, whilst of the cost of Holborn Viaduct not one penny had come out of the City cash, but had been paid for by the Coal and Wines Dues. With regard to the particular expenditure referred to in Question 511, they would see that the Special Committee were informed of that expenditure by Sir Thomas Nelson.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) [who rose amidst loud cries of "Divide!"]said, he desired to say a word or two before the Division was taken, as he intended to give a vote which would not be the universal vote on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and it therefore seemed to him desirable that he should give his reasons for his attitude on the question. He did not intend to enter into the subject of the Committee on the Corporation of London. [Cries of "Divide!"] He thought, as a Metropolitan Member who was not satisfied with the way in which the City funds were expended, he was right in believing that the time had come when they ought to insist upon having a check placed upon the outlay, and upon an efficient audit of the accounts being made. Therefore, he did not see why they should not support a Resolution which declared that the expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London should be placed under similar statutory restrictions to those to which other Corporations in the Kingdom wore subject. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He

  1667
  thought the impatience of the House—especially on this side of it—augured badly for the position in this matter of hon. Members who took a different view of the subject to that which he took. [Continued cries of "Divide!"] He, with other Metropolitan Members on that side of the House, thought that the time had come when the large funds in the hands of the City Authorities should be devoted to some better purpose than that upon which they were at present expended, and administered in a way to give greater public confidence. He therefore supported the Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 156: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 99.)

  BOARD OF TRADE (WORKING OF RAILWAYS).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that in previous Sessions, as many hon. Members were aware, from the Petitions sent to them to present, he had attempted to deal with the question of railway safety by Bill. That year, to find an opportunity to give voice to the wishes of those he represented in this matter, he had substituted a Resolution. One of Her Majesty's Ministers had recently complained, and with some reason, that many Bills brought forward in that House were only Resolulutions expanded. He hoped, therefore, the President of the Board of Trade would not quarrel with him for having condensed the provisions of what he believed was a carefully-drawn Bill into two definite proportions on which the House would express an opinion. The Motion was wholly free from any Party character, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might see reason to accept some part at least of the reforms asked for under the Resolution, and, if so, that he might do what a private Member could not hope to do that Session, by using the power of the Government to carry them into effect by legislation. He would only say further that that was not a mere abstract Resolution based on theory, but was the outcome of the practical experience of a generation, backed by the expressed wishes of thousands upon thousands of those personally and vitally interested in these matters. The Motion expressed
  1668
  the recommendations of the only great Royal Commission which had inquired into railway accidents, and the opinion of the Board of Trade under a former Ministry. He would further remind the House that his own Railway Regulation Bill passed a second reading in 1886, and that thereby the House had approved the principle of his Resolution. They might be told that accidents were diminishing. He was placed at some disadvantage, because the Returns of accidents for the past year were not yet in the hands of hon. Members; but they had the Report of accidents down to June 30, 1887, and he was convinced that hon. Members, if they considered the Reports for the past few years, must be aware that there had been no sensible reduction in the general average of loss of life and injury. That was especially true of the classes of accidents to which he wished to call attention. Some, indeed, had shown a special persistence, and even a distinct increase. Certainly that was the case as to accidents connected with shunting, the number and frequency of which was a national scandal. In the last year for which they had completed Returns—1886—there was a considerable increase. In 1885, 85 railway servants had been killed and 846 had been injured while on duty in shunting operations. In 1886 the numbers had increased to a total of 119 killed and 1,168 injured. In the first six months of 1887 there were 58 killed and 551 injured, showing a persistence of the higher average. Then, as to another most fruitful source of accidents—level crossings—a like increase was to be found. In 1885 there were 93 persons killed at level crossings, and in 1886 there were 104; while in 1885 34 persons were injured at level crossings, and in 1886 52 persons were injured. The real question for the House to consider was whether the casualties could be prevented or not. He could wish that all hon. Members would read and consider the interesting and admirable Reports of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade on the causes of the accidents on which they held inquiries. Those Reports were of the deepest interest, and of high scientific value. He did not think anyone in the House would challenge their scientific accuracy and the weight of their recommendations. Well, they established the fact that though many

  1669
  accidents were due to want of care and want of discipline, the majority of accidents were due either to defective safety appliances or arrangements. What were the checks on which they had to rely to keep down railway accidents? They had compensation. Well, he did not think that compensation, as provided by Lord Campbell's Act, was to be seriously considered. Mr. Galt, one of the greatest authorities on railway matters, in his separate Report, appended to the Report of the Commission of 1877, proved from an average of years that the amount of compensation was not a serious item in the expenditure of the Companies, amounting to less than 1 per cent on their outgoings. He thought that Boards of Railway Directors had, in the great improvement they had so widely introduced, been much more influenced by their own sense of duty and by public opinion. Then, as to personal responsibility, what happened generally? Why, there was some great catastrophe involving loss of life, and then they would find an engine-driver, or guard, or a station-master charged with manslaughter, and, very possibly, the case would be sent for trial. But, then, in a great number of instances, the railway servants would be acquitted at the Assizes, because conclusive evidence would be offered showing that the accident was wholly or largely due to the want of proper safety arrangements. And when that was clearly established he should like to know if any Director had ever been put on his trial or held responsible? Then they had, as another means of checking accidents, the method of publicity. The Companies were compelled to make Returns of accidents and injuries on their lines, and of the extent to which the block system of working and the interlocking of signals and points were adopted on their lines, and also as to the nature of the brakes they used for their rolling stock; but the Returns thus made were largely untrustworthy. Last September, in the Doncaster race week, one of the most ghastly railway disasters occurred at Hexthorpe, a station just outside Doncaster, on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway. That Company made a Return, under the Act, that their line was worked on the absolute block system. But it was shown during the inquiries on the Hexthorpe accident that, for years
  1670
  past, at this, perhaps the most critical and trying time in the whole year, owing to the crowded traffic, trains from several railways approaching Doncaster in quick succession, the block system was recklessly suspended, and that, to protect trains, recourse was had to the antiquated expedient of putting flagmen on the line. Not only so, but he believed he was correct in stating that, according to the regulations of the Company, the flagmen should have been provided with detonating fog signals to place on the rails, and that even that precaution was neglected. He thought that the withdrawal of the protection of the block system on such an occasion as that amply justified the severe strictures on the Company made by Chief Justice Coleridge at the trial, and by Major Marindin, the Inspector of the Board of Trade, who held the inquiry as to the causes of this most terrible accident. But the block system of working was constantly evaded by "warning tickets." Goods trains were admitted into block sections when they were not yet clear, and, in a Report as to an accident in 1883, attention was drawn by one of the Inspectors to the fact that the regulations of the Railway Clearing House actually permitted these evasions. Then, as to the working of single lines, when he spoke on this subject in 1886 he had referred to an incorrect Return made by the Somerset and Dorset Railway, In the last Return of railway accidents they would find a report of an accident which occurred at Rothiemay, on the Great North of Scotland Railway, which disclosed almost every possible form of evasion and neglect. That railway was returned as worked on the absolute block system, with the use of the train staff, which, of course, would prevent two trains from being on the same section at the same time. But it appeared from the Report that there was no train staff or ticket, that the starting signals were not used, that there was no interlocking of points with signals, and that there were no efficient continuous brakes. He might quote the words of Major Marindin, the Inspector who reported on the accident—
  "I am afraid it is hopeless to expect that the Company will voluntarily adopt on their single lines the train staff and ticket system of working, admitted by nearly all railway authorities to be the safest way of working a single line

  1671
  and the Board of Trade has, unfortunately, no power to insist upon this mode of working, or an equivalent, except upon new lines, where it is invariably required."
  Thus, the system of Returns was, in many cases, unsatisfactory. The existing powers of the Board of Trade were practically confined to the postponement, from month to month, of the opening of new lines or new branches of old lines, until the specified requirements of the Board were complied with. But he believed he was right in saying that, so far as legal obligation went, there was nothing to prevent a Company from changing any of these arrangements after the line was opened. At any rate, as regards single lines, there was no doubt whatever that the Board had no check on improper ways of working the line unless the Railway Company made a false Return, in which case the Board could prosecute the Company for the false Return. If those powers as to new lines were so limited, what was to be said. as to the working of old lines, where the traffic and the risk were infinitely greater? Was it not a ridiculous farce for the Board of Trade to be sending recommendations to the Railway Companies which they promptly consigned to the waste paper basket? Since he had had a seat in Parliament he had, from time to time, put Questions as to defective arrangements, distinctly with the object of showing that the Board of Trade was powerless to remedy the defects to which it had called attention. Thus he had referred to the working of the lines at Toton sidings, near Long Eaton, on the Midland Railway. There were eight or nine lines, and there was an immense amount of shunting of mineral and other goods trains. But those lines were worked wholly by hand signals, and there was no cabin. The number of fatal casualties had made those sidings notorious. The hon. Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Baron Henry de Worms), who was then Secretary to the Board of Trade, had replied that the Board thought the working by hand signals unsatisfactory, but had no power to compel a change. In the previous and in the present Session he had put Questions as to the neglect of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to provide either a subway or a bridge at Tod
  1672
  morden. That was a crowded junction, where it was estimated an average of nearly 1,000 persons every day had to cross the lines, and there had been many narrow escapes. The Company had more than once promised to do something; but the Board of Trade was without power to compel even so necessary a work as that. It would probably be in the recollection of the President of the Board of Trade that on no point had the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents laid more stress than on the necessity of powers—
  "To enforce the execution of necessary works wherever the deficiency of station and siding accommodation is such as to endanger public safety."
  The recommendations of the Inspectors in their Reports as to the causes of accidents had no legal force whatever. But the cost of the Railway Department of the Board was considerable. There were the salaries and travelling expenses of the officials, the charges for witnesses, and many other outgoings. He would ask if those Reports had no legal force, if there was no power behind them, what justification was there for such a waste of public money? As it was, the Reports drew the attention of the Companies again and again to serious defects in the working of their lines, and yet the public had to wait till the Reports were supplemented and confirmed by ghastly catastrophes like that at Hexthorpe. Well, if they gave greater powers to the Board, it might be asked whether there would be work to do? There was plenty of work. Take the question of brakes. The Board of Trade had issued a Circular as to brakes in 1877, laying down the conditions of a satisfactory brake—one of which was that it should be self-acting. That Circular had been more than confirmed by scientific experience, and had recently been re-considered and again approved by the most experienced of the Railway Servants at their annual Congress. But, although that Circular had been issued more than 10 years, and although it had been repeatedly confirmed and enforced in the recommendations of the Inspectors of the Board, how long had it taken to convert the London and North-Western Railway, how long had the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company refused to adopt an automatic brake? As to the North-Western, he had in

  1673
  1886 drawn attention to an accident at New Street Station, Birmingham, where, from want of an automatic brake, there was a narrow escape from a serious collision between two sections of a train which parted on an incline. Within six months after, an accident almost identical in its nature took place at the same station, and in the Report of last year there was a serious accident at Carlisle from the same cause. Yet, after the repeated warnings on that point, he found that the Company, out of its immense rolling stock, had only 66 engines and 624 carriages fitted with an automatic brake. One of the most disastrous accidents of recent years occurred near Penistone, on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, in July, 1834, the fatality of the accident being largely due to the fact that the brakes, not being self-acting, did not check the headlong rush of the carriages after the train parted. Two years after, in September, 1886, the same defective brake was responsible for a collision, also at Penistone, with a runaway train, causing injury to 23 persons. General Hutchinson, in his Report on this second accident, says—
  "It is very unsatisfactory to find that this Company has done nothing towards supplying its rolling stock with automatic brakes, notwithstanding the warning it received from the very serious accident which occurred near Penistone in July, 1884, when there is every reason to believe that, had the train been fitted with a good automatic brake, the consequences of that accident might have been considerably mitigated."
  Yet, even after that second warning, they found the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway persisting in the use of this brake, and that this defective brake was largely responsible for the terrible loss of life at Hexthorpe. The consequences of that accident were enormously aggravated because the brakes, not being automatic, were instantly released by the parting of the couplings at the moment of collision, and so the full weight of the train—about 200 tons—was propelled with enormous velocity into the last four carriages of the Midland train, and it was the second shock which caused the most serious casualties. Then there was room for action of the Board of Trade in dealing with shunting accidents. The House would remember that early in 1886 the Railway Servants' Society held trials of
  1674
  coupling appliances at Nine Elms, and it was shown that there were inventions of a workable type which would make it needless for the men to go between the buffers in coupling and uncoupling. In December of the same year, the Midland Railway Company held some interesting trials at Derby of coupling appliances and the coupling pole, and he wished to express the opinion that that Company had admirably discharged its duty to its employés in this matter. These trials were taken to have established the great value of the coupling pole and the three-link coupling. He would express no opinion as to the one appliance being better than another; but he would take the two sets of trials as proving that in the one way or the other it was possible to save many lives, and prevent many men from being maimed in having to go between carriages and trucks in the act of coupling. Yet, although the three-link coupling and the pole were a cheap and easy contrivance, there were many important lines of railway which did nothing. The powers of the Board of Trade might be used not merely to compel the Companies to adopt some safer mode of coupling, but might be used to strengthen the hands of the Companies in dealing with private owners of trucks and waggons. There had been many instances of serious accidents in mixed trains, which were due to stiff and unworkable couplings attached to private waggons. Last winter, again, during the dense fogs, there were an unusually large number of casualties among the platelayers and men who placed fog signals on the rails. There were several contrivances for minimizing the risk under those circumstances. The Motion also dealt with the excessive hours of work. Anyone who had passed some time, as he had, in a signal-box on a crowded line, would know that the strain of prolonged hours of work for signalmen was excessive. To take one instance, there were on the North-Eastern Railway, between Edinburgh and Darlington, 136 signal-boxes. In 96 of those boxes the hours of duty were from 12 to 13, while in the remaining 40 the hours of duty ranged from 9 to 11½. The Return of overtime work obtained in the House of Lords by Lord De La Warr proved that, on some lines, overtime work was systematic. He held that a regular monthly Return, giving

  1675
  full particulars of cases of overtime work, would prevent that overwork being the rule. Opponents of the Motion might say that it would be clangorous to have fixed hours of work on railways. He quite agreed that the conditions of railway work were such that it was impossible to prevent occasional overtime, when trains were delayed owing to weather or other circumstances. But what was wanted was, not to have fixed hours so much as to break up the system by which engine-drivers and guards were forced by the regular hours on which they booked on for duty and booked off duty, to work longer than was desirable for themselves, and for the safety of the public. To sum up his argument, what was wished was, that the powers of the Board of Trade should be consolidated and simplified, so that the Board of Trade should be able to remedy grave defects on all lines in the same way as on new lines before their opening. On the exercise of those powers he would be willing to see any reasonable checks or limitations, and if a suitable tribunal could be instituted, there might be a right of appeal from an order of the Board. But, he would ask, who would be the worse, how many lives might have been saved at Penitone and at Hexthorpe, if the Board had been able to enforce its recommendations? Who would be the worse if the Board could order the adoption of the three-link coupling and the pole, or other coupling appliances? Or, he might put it this way—Was it reasonable that all this public money should be spent if the Board had no real powers? What was the Board of Trade to be? Was it to be lowered to the position of a mere Intelligence Department—a function which might just as well be discharged by the scientific or engineering Press; or was the Board to be a real guardian of the public interest, and to be enabled to vindicate the State's side of the bargain with the railways? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to meet him on some, at least, of the points be had raised. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he rose to second the Motion, because he represented a larger number of railway servants than almost any other Member of the House. Certainly,
  1676
  in the town of Crewe and the neighbouring villages, where the great works of the London and North-Western Railway Company were situated, there were to be found a large number of railway men. Now, the subject was of vital interest to them, and he hoped it would receive the careful attention of the House, and the favourable consideration of the President of the Board of Trade. The Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Channing) referred to the safety both of passengers and of railway servants; but the matter was really most pressing with regard to the protection of the railway servants, for the passengers were protected to a very great extent by the influence of the Press. Whenever there was any great accident, the attention of the country was drawn to it, and full justice as far as possible was done in the matter; but with regard to the servants of the Railway Companies, the number of deaths and accidents vastly exceeded those of passengers. There were in 1886, the last year for which there were any Returns, 459 deaths of railway servants, and 5,490 accidents of a more or less serious character. Such an enormous extent of mortality and injury to limb was a matter which ought to call for the serious attention of the Government and of the country. The Motion referred to preventible causes of accidents; but really, when one took the accidents individually, there was not a single one of them that might not have been prevented if more care had been used either on the part of the unfortunate sufferers or on that of the Railway Companies, in what he thought was the proper discharge of their duties towards their servants. No doubt, the Directors of our Railway Companies were sincerely anxious to prevent these accidents; but they were anxious to prevent them in a sort of abstract way. They did not, as he (Mr. M'Laren) contended, take the pains they ought to take in order to insure that these accidents should be reduced to the very lowest possible number. Although the majority of the Companies had issued rules and regulations and bye-laws for the guidance of their men, in practice those rules were very little more than shams. He did not mean to say that the Directors desired them to be shams; far from that; but in practical operation those rules might almost as well not

  1677
  exist, except for one consideration, and that was that the existence of them in almost every case prevented the men from obtaining compensation for any injuries they sustained. Those rules became dead letters; the men knew them; they knew them in a kind of indefinite way; but in the ordinary everyday work of life they forgot them. There was no one who insisted upon the fulfilment of the rules, and in the pressure of railway work—and railway work was always carried on at the highest pressure with the desire of getting the work done—those rules were neglected, with the connivance of the managers of the railways and those who ought to see that the rules were enforced. They hurried on with their work; they did not wish to delay the trains; there was a natural desire to keep the trains punctual; and, so far from the influence of the managers being used for the enforcement of the rules, their influence was to a very large extent used in an opposite direction. He believed that if there was to be real care exercised, and that if they were to have preventible accidents prevented, they must place a heavy pecuniary responsibility upon the Boards of Directors and the shareholders of the Companies; they must, in fact, make the shareholders responsible for the payment of compensation for all the deaths and for all the serious accidents that occurred. He would not, of course, propose that all accidents should he compensated for, because there were men who would possibly suffer some trivial accident for the sake of compensation; but the class of accidents he referred to were such as resulted in loss of limb, or in serious crushing, so that a man was permanently disabled. Considering that those accidents took place with almost unfailing regularity year by year, he had come to the conclusion—and a great number of railway men whom he knew had come to the conclusion—that the only way of reducing them to the lowest possible dimensions was to give compensation out of the funds of the shareholders. He had said that the rules and regulations of the Companies were, unfortunately, largely shams, and the returns of the deaths and accidents, he thought, were sufficient to prove that that was the case. When there were 459 deaths in a single year—about four deaths of
  1678
  railway servants every three days—and when there were no fewer than 15 accidents, more or less severe, everyday, it was obvious that the figures must be capable of serious reduction, and that if care were exercised, either by the men themselves or by those who had charge of them, the number of those accidents could be very largely reduced. If they examined—which he should not do at length, but very briefly—the class of accidents, ho thought it was clearer still that many accidents could be prevented if the Companies chose to take sufficient means to prevent them. Let them compare the number of accidents to the two classes of railway guards—goods guards and passenger guards. The number of goods guards who were killed in 1886 was one in 192 employed, whereas the number of passenger guards killed was only one in every 3,000. The number of goods guards who were injured was one in 18, whereas the number of passenger guards injured was one in 100. There did not seem any satisfactory reason why the mortality and injury to the guards of goods trains should be so much higher than the mortality and injury of passenger guards, except that they travelled at night, that less care was taken for their lives, and that they were, to some extent, though not very largely, employed in the dangerous work of superintending shunting. When they came to shunters the facts were most startling. One in every 155 employed was killed, and one in 21 was injured. That did not really represent the number of accidents which occurred from careless shunting and defective mechanical appliances. It had been stated, on the authority of the Board of Trade Returns, that from the year 1879 to 1885 the number of deaths in various occupations relative to shunting was no less than 1,075, and that during the same time there were no less than 10,000 men injured. It was stated, and he believed with truth, that the total number of men engaged at any one time in the various occupations that could be classed under the work of shunting was about 14,000, so that during the seven years he had mentioned there were over 11,000 of those persons killed or injured. In other words, about 80 per cent of the average number of men employed in one way or the other in connection with shunting were killed

  1679
  or injured during that period; and what was a most painful incident or circumstance connected with this was that in not a single one of these cases did any man get any compensation from the Railway Companies awarded by law. That, no doubt, was because of the defective state of the Compensation Clauses in the Employers' Liability Act. The Railway Companies were able to show that these accidents were due to the carelessness of the men—they always managed to put the whole blame upon the shoulders of the unfortunate sufferers. The fact that the Companies were not liable for compensation was one of the chief reasons why they did not make adequate arrangements to secure the safety of their servants. If it could be brought home to them that their servants were in their charge, and that unless gross carelessness could be proved against the men compensation was to be paid, it would be to the direct interests of the Railway Companies to insist that care should be taken by their servants. Everyone knew that men of hardy character, like these shunters and railway servants generally were, men inured to danger, did not regard shunting as dangerous to the same extent as any hon. Members would do if they were sent to do shunting work; and, therefore, on the ground that familiarity bred contempt, they became far more liable to accidents than other people would be. Parliament must make it to the direct interest of the Railway Companies to urge men not to forget carefulness, and he trusted that the Board of Trade would take the matter up, and that in the Employers' Liability Bill some clause would be inserted tending in the direction ho had indicated. Now, he gathered from the Returns that the Railway Companies endeavoured to hide from the public the enormous loss of life and injury which shunters suffered, because they raised up the two very distinct occupations of shunters and porters in the Returns of railway accidents. The attention of the Board of Trade had, at various times, been called to the circumstances, and they had been urged to insist that the Railway Companies should separate these classes, and should specify in one column or schedule all who were railway shunters, and should specify in another column or schedule those who
  1680
  were porters. If that were done, the public would know the truth of this matter, and would find that the number of men engaged in shunting who were injured was out of all proportion, having regard to the ordinary doctrine of chance, to the number of men otherwise employed who were injured. Now, of all the accidents in shunting there was no one single cause which killed and injured more men than the accident of squeezing between buffers in coupling and uncoupling. In the seven years previous to 1886 deaths from that cause alone were 244, and the cases of injury 2,411, and yet there were improved appliances which might be employed, which the public knew of, and which had been pressed on the attention of the Railway Companies. These improved appliances, however, had not received either the attention of the Board of Trade to the extent they ought to have done, or the attention of the Boards of Directors. There were now coming into vogue what were called coupling poles, which were admitted to be safer, and, if possible, more expeditious, than the old method, and which entirely obviated the necessity of men coming between the railway trucks to couple and uncouple. The use of these poles ought to be made compulsory. They were very much better than anything which had been adopted or was known up to the present time; and those great and powerful corporations, the Railway Companies, could well afford to use them. Indeed, it was their duty to afford the requisite money for putting at once into employment these coupling poles, and so preventing men having to go between the buffers of railway trucks. The use of these poles, he believed, would cause an absolute stoppage of the deaths, and stoppage of the greater part of the accidents he had referred to. As soon as anything was found out, even if it were not of the most perfect description, which could obviate the number of deaths he had alluded to and the number of accidents, it was the duty of Parliament, in the interest of the subjects of the Queen, to insist on Railway Companies, even if it curtailed their dividends to some fractional amount, taking such steps as would effectually save the lives and the limbs of the poor men in their employ. Then there was the block system; he would not refer to

  1681
  that at any length, for it had already been alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Channing). The notable accident to which his hon. Friend had referred brought to the notice of the public the fact that the Board of Trade Returns giving the number of Railway Companies that employed the block system absolutely were entirely illusory, for the block system could be suspended at any moment the Railway Companies thought fit. As a matter of fact, the Railway Companies chose to suspend the block system at the very busiest moment, just at the very moment when accidents were most likely to occur, and when there was the most imperative necessity for the block system to be maintained in all its stringency. Now, in England, all Companies had not even professed to have adopted the block system. The total number of Companies in England, or, at any rate, the total number of parts of lines where the block system was in force, was 97 per cent of the whole; and taking England, Scotland, and Ireland together, only 93 per cent of the miles of railways were under the block system; and, as he had already said, what was called an absolute block system in the Board of Trade Returns was anything but absolute. The same, only very much worse, applied to the continuous brake system. The Board of Trade Returns showed that 9 per cent of the engines and 15 per cent of the carriages were not fitted with the continuous brake, and it was not at all certain that the balance of engines and carriages were so fitted, although the Board of Trade Returns stated that they were. They were fitted with portions of the system. Some had the pipe, some had the mechanical appliances, some had brakes; but it was well known that the whole of the 91 per cent of engines and the 85 per cent of carriages were not fitted with any continuous brake system which would stand the test to which they were liable. Parliament ought to insist, for the protection both of railway servants and of passengers, that the continuous brake system, the automatic brake system, should be compulsorily enforced; and not merely so, but that there should bo an uniform system for the whole country. Because, if there was not, when the carriages of one Company came on the lines of another Company, it was not
  1682
  certain that the appliances of the one Company would fit in with the appliances of the other Company, and, therefore, the best precautions that might have been taken might be rendered nugatory. The very simplest requirements of the Board of Trade were not even carried out by the Railway Companies. The Board of Trade Returns showed very startling facts under the column headed, "Non-fulfilment of the usual requirements of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade." The "usual requirements" in respect of the concentration of signal and point levers had not been complied with in 4,674 cases; in respect of interlocking signal and point levers, in 4,400 cases; and in respect of the addition of safety points in goods lines, in 2,721 cases. All these cases already proved that the Railway Companies were not doing their duty to their servants or to the public in providing the best possible appliances that were known at the present day. He would not give the figures in reference to overtime, though possibly they were not known to many hon. Members. He did not propose, of course, that overtime should be absolutely forbidden in cases of breakdown and of special emergency; but it was most unreasonable for the safety of travellers, and unreasonable with regard to due diligence and care being exercised by the men, that overtime should be allowed to the extent it was in signal boxes. He had spoken to many railway men on this subject; he was speaking to a guard in whose van he travelled only yesterday, on the question of overtime. That guard told him that he had been a signalman himself for eight years, and that during that time his minimum day's work was 10 hours, but that he often worked a very much longer time. He added that he was a strong man, yet he found that the last two hours were always excessively trying, and that he was not in a position to do his duty as well as it ought to have been done. If the men only worked 10 hours a day there would not be much to be said concerning it, but they worked constantly 12 and even 13 hours on the busier lines. It was stated two years ago by the secretary of the Railway Servants' Society that 80 per cent of the signalmen worked 12 hours a-day. If that was really the case, he contended that, in the in-

  1683
  terest of the travelling public and of the workmen themselves, Parliament was entitled to insist that this overtime should be stopped. There were two remedies which he ventured to suggest for this evil state of affairs, and one was that there should be a different class of Inspectors. It was very right to have experienced Inspectors—men who had high scientific training, men who were skilled engineers; but he believed that practical men, men trained in the railway service, men who had been engineers, drivers, guards, and signalmen employed. on the large works of Railway Companies, men who had been brought up to this work from boyhood, would make better Inspectors than the most highly-trained experts of the Board of Trade. If they appointed such men Inspectors, they would give more confidence to railway servants, and would also open up an ambition to railway servants to do their duty well, in the hope that they would have some promotion of the kind offered to them in the course of years; but, above all, they would get a thoroughly efficient set of Inspectors, because they would get men who, knowing the dangers of the work, would be best able to find them out. In the second place, the remedy he had to suggest was that they should make the Railway Companies liable for injury to their servants. The men could very properly argue that they incurred risk, and the relatives of those who were killed could very properly plead that the men had lost their lives in the interest of the service of the Company. It could be properly argued that they had sustained injury in expediting the traffic, and in endeavouring to make the lines work smoothly. An immense number of accidents did occur in this way, and the Railway Companies were not doing their best to check them. When they considered that an immense number of these accidents arose from the non-observance of the block system, and through the want of continuous brakes and of proper coupling apparatus, and through the immense amount of shunting which went on in the dark, or with such inefficient lights that the men could not properly do their work, they must come to the conclusion that it was simply a question of money. If the Railway Companies would expend the necessary amount of money in providing
  1684
  better appliances, these accidents would not happen, and therefore it was not true that the accidents were due entirely to the carelessness of the men; as a matter of fact, they were due far more largely to the carelessness of the Railway Companies. It was quite evident that the enormous loss of life, and still more the enormous injury to limb which he had mentioned, was due, to a great extent, to causes which might be remedied by a more free expenditure of money on the part of the Railway Companies, and therefore he held that Parliament ought to hold the Railway Companies responsible. He trusted the House would insist, by every means in its power, upon the Railway Companies providing every precaution, no matter what might be the expenditure of money that was necessary.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to deal more effectually with preventible causes of accidents to Railway servants and the public, and to reduce the excessive hours of labour among several classes of Railway servants; and that it is expedient to further extend, by legislation, the powers of the Board of Trade to insist on the adoption by Railway Companies of more adequate arrangements to secure the safety of their servants and the public, and to obtain from Railway Companies periodical returns of all cases in which their servants have been on duty for more than twelve hours at a time, or have been sent on duty without an interval of nine hours rest."—(Mr. Channing.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)said, the subject was one of very great interest and importance; but he thought that the evident dis-inclination of hon. Members to continue the debate showed that the House did not look upon the question as one capable of anything like immediate solution, if of solution at all, on the lines laid down in the Motion. The hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) appeared to think that all he desired would be met by an increase of the powers of the Board of Trade; but the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) looked at the question from quite another point of view. He formally seconded the Motion, but he by no means seconded the speech of the hon. Member for East Northampton, because he seemed to think that the best way of

  1685
  preventing accidents in the future would be to increase the liability of the shareholders. The hon. Member spoke of the carelessness of the Company's servants, and seemed to argue that that could be cured by imposing greater liability on the shareholders, whose rules those men broke. He confessed that was an argument which he failed to follow. He did, however, think that the right way of dealing with this question was by maintaining and insisting upon the responsibility of the Companies rather than by imposing very onerous and impossible duties on the Government of the country. It was true that the law allowed the Board of Trade to exact very stringent conditions from new Railway Companies before giving them a certificate for the opening of their lines; but as soon as a line was opened, with one or two exceptions, the condition of things was practically this—that the sole and undivided responsibility for its proper working rested with the Company and the Directors. That might be right or it might be wrong, but it was a policy which Parliament had consistently maintained for many years, and he thought that it had had this advantage—that by the maintenance of that responsibility the Companies had been induced, in their own interest, to take steps for their own protection and for the protection of their servants and customers—steps which they could never have been induced to take had not the responsibility rested entirely on their own shoulders. The Board of Trade already had the power of inspecting railways and rolling stock at any time. They had the power and the right and duty, when an accident had happened, to send an Inspector to inquire and report, and the results were laid before Parliament and the public. The Companies in that way had the pressure of public opinion brought to bear upon them. This power of inspection and publication, together with the liability of the Company to heavy damages and the loss of custom through public mistrust, were penalties greater than any that could he imposed by any Act of Parliament. He thought it could not be denied that the present system, at any rate, had done good in diminishing the risk of accidents on railways. He would give to the House a few statistics with regard to this
  1686
  matter. During the last 15 years, since the Report of the Commission on Railway Accidents, there could be no doubt whatever that the precautions against danger taken by the Railway Companies had been very largely extended. In the first place, a general system of signals had been adopted, which was not in use before. In 1873 49 per cent of double line was worked on the absolute block system, but in 1887 the percentage was 93. In 1873 39 per cent of the points and signals interlocked, while in 1887 89 per cent interlocked. There was an equal improvement in the adoption of continuous brake power. In 1880 12 per cent of the engines and 7 per cent of the carriages complied with the conditions of the Board of Trade circular, and 15 per cent of the engines and 29 per cent of the carriages partly complied with it, making a total of 27 per cent of the engines and 36 per cent of the carriages wholly or partly complying with the circular, and 73 per cent of the engines and 64 per cent of the carriages not complying at all. In 1887 54 per cent of the engines and 59 per cent of the carriages complied wholly with the circular, and 39 per cent and 31 per cent partly, and only 7 per cent of the engines and 10 per cent of the carriages did not comply with the circular at all. The House must admit that that had been a great advance. The result had been that, though the number of travellers and the speed of the trains had greatly increased, the proportion of accidents had enormously diminished; and he thought the Record of English Railway Companies, considering the work they did, was a very remarkable one. The Returns showed that in 5,500,000 of journeys in 1874 one passenger was killed through causes beyond his own control, and one in 296,000 injured. In 1886, in 90,500,000 of journeys, one passenger was killed, and one in 1,179,000 injured. He quite admitted that the statistics were not so favourable with regard to railway servants; but even bore there had been an improvement, considering the great increase of their work and the increased number and speed of trains. Ho thought it would be most unwise on the part of Parliament to alter the general policy which had been adopted in this matter by doing anything which would tend to hand over the direction or administra-

  1687
  tion of the Railways to the Board of Trade, because if the Board of Trade was to be made responsible for the public safety generally on railways it must have power to order changes of a most important character. That was a position in which he hoped the House would never place the Government of the country. Of course, it had always been recognized that there were details of management as to which it might be right to entrust the Board of Trade with powers to enforce regulations upon the Companies. For instance, both as to the loss of life and the danger incurred, level crossings were no doubt a prolific source of accidents. Power was now given to the Board of Trade with regard to railways opened since 1863 to compel the substitution of a bridge for a level crossing, and he was disposed to think that that power might properly be extended so as to apply to all railways; but there, again, he would remind the House that year after year the Board of Trade had objected to level crossings in new Railway Bills, and yet until lately it had been almost invariably the rule that Private Bill Committees had neglected the Reports of the Board of Trade and permitted level crossings. The hon. Member had spoken a good deal of the accidents from the present system of coupling. That was no doubt a great source of accidents to railway servants; but though the method of coupling of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken, might be a great improvement on the want of system which now prevailed, there was no particular method so generally acknowledged as satisfactory that the Board of Trade ought to impose it upon Railway Companies. The Board of Trade ought not to impose any system which was still sub judice. It might be said that the block system and the interlocking of points and signals, accompanied by some sort of continuous brake, were things which the Board of Trade ought to have power to enforce. But the hon. Member who seconded the Motion urged that, unless the same form of continuous brake was employed, the danger would not be removed. He was not prepared to say that there was one form of continuous brake so much better than every other form that it should be forced on all the railways of the country. Whatever way they looked at the question
  1688
  they were face to face with considerable difficulties. He had followed the action of his Predecessor at the Board of Trade in declining to include the question of public safety in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, because he had thought it impossible to deal with the many questions open to discussion which would be then raised without overloading the Bill to a degree which might endanger its becoming law this Session. But he could undertake, in reply to this Motion, that he would carefully look into those points to which he had alluded, and would endeavour, at the earliest opportunity he could find, to ask Parliament to deal with them in the sense he had indicated. He quite agreed with what had bean said by the hon. Member as to the importance of obtaining returns from the Railway Companies with regard to overtime. He thought, however, that it would be absolutely impossible to prohibit overtime. You must have it in some cases where there was a special press of work, and what was overtime—he meant in the interest of the public—in one kind of employment would not be overtime in another kind. What was wanted was that the public should know what was being done in the matter. To that point also he would attend. He should be glad to deal with this subject before long, but he was afraid he could hold out no hope of doing so this Session. It would, however, receive his attention, because, while declining to relieve the Railway Companies of responsibility, he felt that there was a responsibility on the Board of Trade to care for the public safety so far as it properly could, and in these minor points he thought something could be done more than was done at present.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Resolution had done well in bringing it forward in a form which made it incumbent on the Government either to promise to legislate on the question or meet the Resolution with a direct negative. He was glad the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade had promised to legislate. Though the right hon.

  1689
  Baronet's promise was not so fall and ample as it could be desired, yet he (Mr. Mundella) thought the fact that the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that he had not sufficient power to enable him to deal with railways which came before him at the Board of Trade, even to enforce the most reasonable requirements for safety upon some Railway Companies, was in itself an advantage, and one which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) might be congratulated upon. The position of the Board of Trade in relation to railways had been correctly stated by the right hon. Baronet. It was quite true that when a railway was first inspected for the purpose of launching it upon the world, the Board of Trade might make demands upon it, and satisfy itself that in all respects the railway met the most modern requirements, and was about to be worked upon the most approved system; but after the railway had once started, the Board of Trade had no power to enforce even the most established and well-tried arrangements that might be necessary for the public safety. He (Mr. Mundella) remembered a case that was put before him about two years ago. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who was not now in his place, was President of the Board of Trade, he had before him the case of a Scotch line, which had become very antiquated in all its appliances, and had run down its stock very much and had been subject to several accidents. Although letters were written on the subject and Inspectors reported against the line, nothing could be done to enforce even the most moderate improvements until the railway came to Parliament for a Bill, and then his right hon. Friend said to them: "Until you fulfil the necessary requirements for safety on your line, I will oppose your Bill, and every Bill you may introduce." That showed how utterly helpless the Board of Trade was to enforce upon Railway Companies even the most reasonable requirements for public safety. He (Mr. Mundella) had been very glad to hear the right hon. Baronet opposite enumerate the questions upon which he thought he had established proofs of the utility of appliances which had gone beyond the mere stage of experiment.
  1690
  He (Mr. Mundella) quite admitted that that would be very dangerous indeed to entrust the Board of Trade with power to enforce every new invention upon Railway Companies, but he was quite sure that there was no fear that the Board of Trade would arbitrarily force Railway Companies to unnecessary expense; but in enumerating the respects in which he thought the Board of Trade had a right to force the Companies the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned interlocking signals, continuous brakes, and an efficient block system. The right hon. Baronet, he thought, had expressed some doubt as to coupling, as that question was still sub judice, and no doubt it was true that there was no system of automatic coupling which, as yet, had arrived at such a pitch of perfection as to warrant the Board of Trade in requiring the Companies to adopt it. There was no doubt that the Companies themselves were largely interested in the adoption of the best improvements, but with regard to the greatest source of danger to which railway servants were exposed, there could be no doubt that the coupling pole, simple as it was, was efficient and remarkably expeditious. The best proof which he could give of this was to state that he was present at the trial which took place in 1886 at Derby with the whole of the Midland Railway Directors, when a number of trains were ranged before them and were coupled on different systems, and when the coupling pole was used so dexterously by the men in the employment of the Midland Company that the directors were perfectly satisfied that no better or more expeditious system had been up to that moment devised. There could be no doubt that if the coupling pole were in general use there would be a large diminution in the number of those frightful accidents which occurred from time to time amongst railway servants in consequence of the operation of coupling. He had no hesitation in saying that the coupling pole had passed out of the region of experiment into that of accomplished fact. He thought that when the right hon. Baronet brought in his Bill it would be well for him to require in it that railway servants in future should not be under the necessity of coupling by direct process and exposure, but should do the work by coupling poles. He quite agreed that it was marvellous

  1691
  that the passenger traffic of this country could be conducted with so few accidents and with such little loss of life as we generally experienced. It was marvellous that there was to be noticed a steady diminution in the number of passengers who suffered from accidents; but it was to be regretted that that was hot quite the case with regard to railway servants. If the right hon. Baronet would refer to the statistics for a few years past—take the last three years for instance—he would find that in that period not only was there no diminution in the number of accidents to railway servants as compared with the preceding years, but he was afraid they would show rather an increase than otherwise. But it was creditable both to the railway servants and to the whole railway management of the country that passengers could travel with almost absolute impunity so far as loss of life was concerned. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) had given them statistics from the Returns of 1887, dealing with the year 1886, and he (Mr. Mundella) found that, whereas only eight passengers were killed from accidents to trains, rolling stock, or permanent way, the number of railway servants killed by accidents to trains was 421, and from other causes 81, making a total of more than 500 railway servants killed besides 2,036 injured in 1886. The record of 1887, he was afraid, was not a favourable one. The concluding paragraph of the Return was as follows:—
  "Thus the total number of accidents reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies during the year"
  —and this included cases of suicide and accidents to persons crossing lines—
  "amounts to 989 persons killed and 7,107 injured."
  Well, that was a fearful tale of loss of life and injury occurring annually, and, so far as the railway servants were concerned; they were deserving of all the protection which could possibly be given to them in this House. He found that for the seven years ending in the year 1885, that the number of railway servants absolutely killed in the discharge of their duty was 1,075, whilst the number injured was 10,111. Now, the right hon. Baronet also foreshadowed that, in addition to laying down regulations for the use of such improvements as he had specified in his speech, and
  1692
  which he (Mr. Mundella) had enumerated, that they should have periodical Returns with respect to the hours of overwork and duty during which railway servants were employed. He thought the Return recently moved for by Earl De La Warr had thrown a good deal of light on the hours of duty and long service of railway servants. No doubt, guards and engine drivers of good strength were often shunted to sidings and had to remain. there for hours on duty without being actively employed; but, still, when a man was on duty away from home for 19 or 20 hours at a stretch, sometimes exposed to inclement weather, they could hardly expect that diligence and self-control from him that they would have had a right to look forward to from those employés under other circumstances. He thought the right hon. Baronet was quite right in not having dealt with this question of safety in the Railway Bill before the House, because that Bill was essentially one for dealing with rates and not with the question of safety. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Baronet would find time during the present Session to bring in a short Bill dealing with the question, and there could be no reason why that Bill should not be read a second time at once. It would be read a second time almost without discussion, and would go upstairs to the Grand Committee on Trade, and they might even during the present Session secure the passing of a measure which would accomplish very much of what had been foreshadowed. He thought the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Chaining) would make a great mistake if he divided the House upon the question after the promise they had received from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member had every reason to expect that a fair and adequate measure would be laid before Parliament, and in case that measure should not be so full and ample as he desired, he would have an opportunity when it was before the House of moving Amendments upon it. After the very fair, reasonable, and satisfactory offer which the right hon. Baronet had made, he (Mr. Mundella) thought it would be almost ungracious to divide against him on this question. One word more as to the necessity for the Bill which the right hon. Baronet foreshadowed. The

  1693
  right hon. Baronet was desirous, and rightly so, not to put responsibility on the Board of Trade which ought to be borne by the Railway Companies themselves. Therein, no doubt, the House would support him, but what could be more unsatisfactory, more humiliating than that the officers of the Board of Trade should again and again, year after year, when accidents had occurred, report these accidents to this House without any result whatever following? One illustration of this would be sufficient—and he thought it was referred to by the hon. Member behind him—namely, the case of the Penistone accident. General Hutchinson reported that the collision would no doubt have been prevented if the train had been fitted with a good automatic continuous brake. He added that it was very unsatisfactory to find from the Returns for the half-year ending June 30, that this Company had done nothing towards supplying its rolling stock with automatic brakes, notwithstanding the warning it received in the very serious accident which occurred near Penistone, in July, 1884, when there was reason to believe that had the train bean provided with a good automatic brake, the consequence of the accident would have been greatly mitigated. He (Mr. Mundella) could not conceive anything more humiliating than to have to report again and again that certain appliances which were in use in ail the best railways, and which were necessary for the safety of the public—that they should report after a frightful accident in 1884, and another in 1885, and another in 1886, and still have no power to enforce their view upon the Company which took no steps to alter the state of things on its line. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Baronet would strengthen himself against the helpless position in which the Board of Trade found itself. In conclusion, he would merely remark that there was something to be said for the suggestion made by one hon. Member, and that was that if the right hon. Baronet would introduce such a measure as that which he had foreshadowed, that under that measure he would appoint Sub-inspectors whose duty it would be to consider these points. There might only be one or two required, but they should be practical men, familiar with the working of railways, and it
  1694
  should be their duty to inspect the railways and railway management solely with a view to safety, so far as it was affected by the questions dealt with in this Motion. On the whole, he thought they ought to be grateful for the readiness with which the right hon. Baronet had promised to deal with the subject, and he trusted the hon. Member who had moved the Motion would not make the mistake of dividing against such a good offer.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid, that though it was evident that the House was not in a mood for long speeches this evening, he must ask to be allowed to offer a few remarks on two particular points of the Resolution moved by his hon. Friend. There could be no denying the fact that the amount of overwork imposed on the various classes of railway servants by the excessive labour referred to in the Resolution, was not only injurious to the health of the men themselves, but dangerous to their lives, as well as the safety of the travelling public. The figures contained in the Returns of the Board of Trade disclosed such a state of things that great sympathy had been created for these men. Though they were told this evening by the right hon. Baronet—and they were very glad to hear it—that accidents to travellers on the railways had largely diminished, still there had been no satisfactory reduction in the number of accidents to railway servants themselves, and in the loss of life amongst railway servants; moreover, it was well known that the men were compelled to work under such a system of overtime as could not be conducive to their safety, a system which ought not to be allowed to be carried out to the extent to which it was now adopted, especially considering that these men carried not only their own lives in their hands, so to speak, but also the lives of other people. That it was time to pay attention to this question was evidenced and demonstrated by the fact that the men themselves were now fearlessly taking steps in the matter, and creating public interest in their demand throughout the length and breadth of the land; and if further argument were needed, and facts as well, they had but to follow these men through the various meetings which they now held in several centres to find

  1695
  reasons strong enough to make good their case. At a meeting of railway servants held at Cardiff, a fortnight ago, great interest was taken in the matter, and a resolution on the point was unanimously carried. The resolution was to the effect that that meeting of Cardiff railway men of all grades, and connected with five railways, testified their hearty approval of the action taken by Earl De La Warr, the Nobleman who moved a similar Motion in the other House, for Returns of the number of hours per diem during which railway men were required to work. The meeting declared that whilst the fact of this Nobleman calling public attention to this matter secured nothing to the railway servants through the Board of Trade, yet, as calling public attention to the subject, it would prove a wholesome deterrent, so far as the Railway Companies were concerned. The resolution also expressed a hope that every effort would be made, in and out of Parliament, to secure Returns on an improved plan. The chairman of the meeting had invited. those present to give their experience as to prolonged periods of duty, giving it as his own personal opinion that no more conclusive evidence of the existence of a real grievance in that locality could be furnished than by the Board of Trade Returns, which showed that within a period of two months there were no fewer than 2,000 cases of over-work on the Taff Railway alone. A number of railway men accepted the chairman's invitation. The first urged the imperative need to the public, if only for the sake of their own safety, to come forward and insist on making these long hours of duty impossible. This person declared that the present system was not only dangerous to the railway servants and the public, but injurious to the health of the former, and that it had demoralizing effects generally. Another railway man said. that the evil was the more pronounced in those cases where the men ended their 15 or 16 or 17 hours work late at night; that in such cases there was always danger of a man's falling asleep at his post An engine driver at the meeting stated that the Board of Trade Returns, startling as they were, did not reveal the facts in all their soberness. Acting upon the suggestion of the chairman.
  1696
  the men submitted statements as to the hours they were on duty in the week. One man stated. that during the past week he had been for two days working 17 hours a-day, one day 13 hours, and the fourth day 22 humus, 69 hours in all, or one hour over 17 hours a-day for four days. In another instance the hours were first day 20, the second day 10 hours, the third day 12, the fourth day 19–61 hours in all, or one hour over 15 hours a-day for four clays. A paper was handed to the secretary showing that during the past week an employé present at the meeting had put in the following hours:—The first day 23 hours 40 minutes, second, day 20 hours, third day 10 hours 30 minutes, fourth day 12 hours, and fifth day 12 hours, in all 88 hours in five days, or half-an-hour over 17½ hours in each of five days. Well, not to carry the matter to an extreme, it appeared to him that 15 hours per day was considered by Railway Directors and Railway Companies to be very fair and reasonable week. Fifteen hours a-day! It was the general experience of railway men of all grades as to the work they had to do that to travel in a train for 10 or 12 hours so unnerved them as to unfit them for further duty for that day, unnerved them more than the hardest day's work they could perform elsewhere. Such appeared to be the result of the shock the nervous system got in a train. That being the case with a traveller in a train, making, if they liked, every reasonable allowance for the usage, and being accustomed to stand on the engines and so forth, what could be said of a man who had. to stand on his engine for 15 hours a-day? Not only had a man to stand in charge of a delicate piece of machinery, but he had to be looking out before him, watching this point and that point and turning round and staring about him all day. It was enough to unnerve any man, and it was no wonder that so many of these men were colour blind. The wonder was that they saw so much. It would be no surprise to him if they became stone blind, seeing what they had to do and the hours they had to work. A noble Lord, speaking on this subject in the other House a few days ago, said that there was an order on one of our great railways—namely, the London and. North-Western—to the effect that all men who found themselves

  1697
  on duty for 15 hours must immediately report themselves, or report the circumstances to the master at the station at which they stopped, in order that relief might be ready for them at the next available station. Well, that being so, it seemed that that fixed the minimum number of hours work after which the men were entitled to seek relief at 15. They were not entitled to seek relief until they had been on their engines 15 hours per day. Certainly that was not Hutch to boast of—it was not much for a wealthy Company to boast of, much less for the men themselves to be thankful for. Still much capital was made out of this fact that an order had. been issued that the men were to be relieved after 15 hours' work. But he ventured to say in this House that that order, though good so far as it went, was either thoroughly impracticable under present arrangements or thoroughly unpopular with the railway officials—either one or the other, or perhaps both. The figures in the Returns alluded to clearly showed that the order had not reduced overwork upon that line to any appreciable degree, for no less than 5,710 cases occurred in one month in which engine drivers and firemen were employed for 16 hours and upwards. To talk about the regulation in face of figures of that kind was inconsistent; and it might with reason be asked if the regulation had lessened overwork at all, what would have been the condition of things if no such regulation had been made? Certainly, he said again, there was nothing to boast of. Had the limit been fixed at 12 or some lesser number of hours, some praise might have been awarded to the Company for this seemingly honest attempt to arrest the practice of working excessive hours; but when the Company allowed 15 hours to be worked before it thought it time to intervene, there was nothing whatever to be thankful for. It appeared to him that though the order in question had done but little good, had it not been made at all these railway servants would have been like perpetual motion machines, required to go round and round and round until they could go round no more—to go round until they dropped at their work, like the colliery horses, which some colliery proprietors worked till they fell, and then turned them aside for new ones.
  MR. MAC INNESsaid, they had all of them to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire for what had been a very interesting and, he thought he might say, a profitable discussion, and perhaps, before the debate terminated, it might not be unreasonable if a few words were said by someone connected with the Railway interest. They had he1trd a good many suggestions to-night, and, amongst others, it had been proposed by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, and the hon. Member who seconded it, that increased powers should be put into the hands of the President of the Board of Trade; but he (Mr. Mac Innes), for one, was not surprised to hear both the present holder of that Office and the right hon. Gentleman who sat below (Mr. Mundella) state that they were far from willing to accept that responsibility. The Board of Trade were always likely to be asked to accept fresh responsibilities, and to be pressed in various directions from different quarters. Tonight it was suggested that, in addition to the many responsibilities that already rested upon them, they should undertake a further one in connection with railway management, and certainly, so far as Railway Companies were concerned, there was no responsibility they would more gladly see handed over to the President of the Board of Trade, and the officials who surrounded him, than the solemn responsibility of the safety of human life. He (Mr. Mac Innes) did not propose at that late hour to weary the House with any long observations, and he had risen for the purpose merely of saying a few words in reply to the insinuation which had been thrown out that Railway Companies, and those responsible for the management of railways, were indifferent to human life. Much had been said to-night about the small number of fatal accidents amongst railway passengers, and they were thankful that there was such a marked decrease in the number of those accidents; but so long as the railways of this country reckoned their mileage by millions of miles, and the public insisted upon their journeys being effected at great speed, they could not venture to hope that the days of terrible railway accidents were yet passed. So long as railway journeys

  1699
  were run at the present speed, and millions of miles were run every year, so long would they from time to time hear of what the hon. Gentleman below him had styled, and styled justly, those "ghastly accidents;" and when they read, as they were in the habit of reading from time to time, of these terrible accidents, who, did the house think, felt these circumstances most acutely? As people walked along the streets and saw on the newspaper placards the announcement, "Another terrible railway accident." they were all shocked; but to the ordinary passer-by it occasioned. no more, possibly, than a sensation for the moment, whilst to the railway man it was something much more—something in the nature of a personal disaster, especially if the accident occurred on a line for which he was in any way responsible. It was not surprising, under the circumstances, that the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon Gentleman the Member for Sheffield both shrunk from responsibility as to the protection of life in connection with railway management. What were the suggestions with regard to the deficiencies of the railway system in connection with the prevention of accidents made to-night? They might be summed up in two words—want of safety appliances and want of further outlay of money. With regard to the first point—namely, want of safety appliances, it had been very well set before the House to-night by the President of the Board of Trade that the Board of Trade were unwilling to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding upon the relative merits of the various inventions which from time to time were brought before the country. As a matter of fact, the Railway Companies' difficulty in this respect was the difficulty of arriving at a decision between one invention as against another, rather than a question of money. It was difficult for one Railway Company to make up its mind to accept an invention which might to another Railway Company have appeared desirable in preference to several other inventions. He himself had sat for some years on a Railway Board and had heard these questions very frequently discussed. He had heard questions with regard to signals and automatic brakes, couplings, and so on—questions affecting alterations and additions; and whatever might be the
  1700
  points which weighed with the Directors on these occasions, he had never heard any question of money brought forward when it was a matter of the saving of human life. Whenever there was a question of rendering human life more safe or of preventing the occurrence of accidents, he had never heard the money point put forward. Of course, it did not follow that the question of money did not come in, and regard might be had to it, for instance, in connection with a new brake when several inventions were before a Company which were regarded as of equal value in other respects. But when a Railway Company was satisfied that an inventor had made out his case, the money question did not come in. He had risen for the purpose of drawing attention to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Resolution, for he had seemed to imply that on this point the Railway Companies were influenced mainly by their pockets. The hon. Member had used several expressions of a rather strong character. He had spoken of the "requisite money" being found and had alluded to the fears entertained with regard to the adoption of certain arrangements curtailing dividends, and fears that greater compensation might have to be paid by the Railway Companies. He (Mr. Mac Innes) altogether denied that properly managed Railway Companies were influenced by such questions as this. The hon. Member had referred to the new coupling-poles, and it was notorious that these had been adopted by some Railway Companies, and that others had not availed themselves of them because they were not yet convinced of their utility. But did anyone think that the expense of purchasing these poles would deter any Railway Company from adopting them if they thought for a moment that they would be efficacious for the purpose of preserving the lives of their servants from danger? He deeply deplored the sad tale of death and suffering which had to be told in connection with the work of railway servants. He welcomed a discussion such as this, because suggestions were desired from every quarter which would tend in any way to diminish the fatalities amongst these people. When he heard the statement made as to greater care being taken of the life of the guard of a passenger train than of the life of

  1701
  the guard of a goods train, he wondered at its being possible for anyone to make such a suggestion; but when the House came to consider the case of a guard of a goods train, they would admit that they were approaching the consideration of a large class of the community who were undoubtedly engaged in a hazardous occupation. They found on all hands, if they looked at the mortality statistics, that there were many classes of the community exposed to far greater risks than others. Members of this House would admit that they and their families were not as a body exposed to such great risks as soldiers, sailors, navvies, dock labourers, and people engaged in rough kinds of work, who, at all times and in all countries, were more exposed to risks than other people. Railway servants must be placed in the same category, for, compared with the condition of other classes of the community, their occupation rendered it necessary for them to run great risks. He, for one, was thankful when he heard of any new appliance being brought out or when he heard any suggestion made, from whatever quarter it came, which tended to diminish the fatal and sad tale of suffering and death which they heard from time to time. With regard to the question of railway servants working overtime, he agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that any Railway Company that would allow its servants to work 19 or 20 hours at a stretch was monstrously neglecting its duty; and when he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. W. Abrahams) he could not help wishing that the hon. Gentleman was able to give them full particulars of the cases to which he referred. He (Mr. Mac Innes) did not know the facts of the cases, but he could almost take it upon himself to say that in no case was a driver ever allowed to drive his engine 15 hours at a time. That, he should imagine, was quite an impossibility. He took it that the circumstances of the cases referred to would be these: that the drivers were in charge of goods trains in specially bad weather during the prevalence of fogs or snowstorms. They must have been detained through blocks from the snow or fog. Drivers were frequently prevented in this way
  1702
  from going forward for some hours, being obliged to remain on a siding or in a station, and beyond the fact that a man would be away from home for the long period referred to, and to some extent would be exposed to the inclemency of the weather, he would not be engaged in driving his engine, or would not be on the footplate the whole time. As to the case to which attention had been drawn of the Company that instructed its men, after 15 hours on duty, to apply for relief at the nearest station, the hon. Member seemed to think that 15 hours was considered the usual and regular working period for the Company's servants. So far as he (Mr. Mac Innes) knew anything about railway management he should say that the hon. Member added something like 50 per cent to the usual period that it was was understood that railway servants were employed. He believed 10 hours a-day was more like the time for which a driver or fireman was expected to remain on duty. Passenger drivers and firemen might be able to keep within those limits, but any hon. Member who thought over the circumstances attending our goods traffic up and down the country, would at once see that in exceptional weather such as we had in the month of January—and he believed the hon. Member's cases occurred in that month—when fog and snow prevailed, fireman and drivers must be detained sometimes for a long period away from home. He (Mr. Mac Innes) was the last man to wish to minimize the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley. It had so happened that a case had been brought under his notice where a driver had been away from home 20¼ hours. The case at first sight appeared most startling, but, on inquiry, it was found that-out of these 20¼ hours 10 had been spent at a terminus. No doubt, the man was away from home, and had to report himself on duty for 20¼ hours, but the House would see that the case was very different from that of a man who was employed at his ordinary work for that length of time, although he was reported as doing 20¼ hours' work. He had not risen to speak of this question of overtime, however, but to protest against the insinuation that any question of the curtailment of dividends, or of finding the requisite money for com-

  1703
  pensation, had any weight with those concerned in the management of our railways when they had to consider that most precious thing—the life and safety not only of the passengers they carried but of those they employed in their service.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he would not detain the House for more than a few moments. He regretted very much that in dealing with a question like this affecting the interests of between 200,000 and 300,000 railway servants, there was no person connected with that class in this House. He was sure that the railway servants in the country would be grateful to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire for the very able and lucid manner in which he had brought this matter before the House this evening. They would also be grateful to the President of the Board of Trade—if the right hon. Baronet would allow him to say so—for the conciliatory spirit in which he had received the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Fenwick) did not claim to speak with any special knowledge of the question affecting railway servants, and his object in rising was chiefly to urge upon the President of the Board of Trade the necessity of doing something, and that as soon as he possibly could see his way clear, to shorten the hours of these railway servants. He was very glad to observe that the right hon. Baronet was much impressed with the important question of overtime, and probably this subject was one which was more prolific of railway accidents than any other cause whatsoever. He would chiefly call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a Report which was made on the accident that occurred at Chevingtou, on the North Eastern Company's line, in the month of October, 1887. The Report, dealing with this accident, was made to the Board of Trade by Major Marindin, and it would probably be within the recollection of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, what the nature of that Report was. Major Marindin called special attention in his Report to the question of overtime, and after stating that there was a necessity for a greater amount of brake power on goods trains, especially fast goods trains, and stating the necessity for steam brakes on the engines, ho said that the attention of
  1704
  the Company should be called to what might be considered as having probably been one of the principal causes of this collision—a collision in which much personal injury was done to those in charge of the train, and in which very considerable damage was done to the rolling stock—and that was the excessively long hours of work of some of the men employed. The House would probably be surprised to learn that one of the drivers in charge of one of these goods trains had been on duty for 17½ hours the day previous to the accident, and went on duty again after having been only allowed 7¼ hours rest. At the time of the accident this man had already been on duty 13½ hours—and if all had gone well he would have remained on duty three hours more—making in all, as Major Marindin said, a period of 31 hours duty out of 38¼ hours, leaving out of consideration the time occupied by the man in going from his home to his work and back. Major Marindin further reported—
  "Such hours of work should not be tolerated, either in justice to the men themselves or in justice to the travelling public, for it is quite impossible for the drivers, however good they may be, to work for such a time without becoming worn out and inattentive and unfit for such responsible duties."
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Mac Innes) had declared that the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. W. Abraham) had overstated the case when he related to the House the circumstance of an engine driver having been on duty 15 hours.
  MR. MACINNES: I said, I believed he had overstated the case in saying that the man had been 15 hours on his engine.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he held in his hand an analysis of the Return which was presented to the House of Lords a short time ago on the Motion of Earl De La Warr. He would not trouble the House with the whole of it, but he would give some figures as to the hours the drivers and firemen were on duty—and whether being on duty meant the driver being on his engine or employed in other responsible work he would leave the House to determine. The number of drivers and firemen in connection with the whole of the Companies given in the Return, who were on duty for 15 hours, was 88,444. Those who were on duty

  1705
  for 16 hours numbered 46,104; those who were on duty for 17 hours were 22,130; and those who were on duty for 18 hours numbered 20,843; so here they had an enormous number of firemen and drivers who were on duty not only for 15 hours but for 18 hours on a stretch. He thought that no hon. Member would be prepared to contend that men were fitted and capable for the discharge of such important duties as railway servants were called upon to discharge after having been on duty either for 18 hours or 15 hours, and he would press on the attention of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, that in any measure which he intended to present to Parliament on this question he should endeavour, to some extent., to limit or to provide for the reduction of the amount of overtime during which railway servants were called upon to attend to their duties. It was as much in the interest of the travelling public as in the interest of the railway servants themselves that this question was pressed home upon the President of the Board of Trade. They might be told that it was not right for Parliament to interfere with adult labour; but the only way in which justice could be procured by the persons affected was by organizing themselves, and trying conclusions with their employers. That, however, would inflict considerable inconvenience on the travelling public, and the trade and commerce of the district covered by these lines of railway. They all knew what serious inconvenience was caused to the commerce of the country by the strike on the Midland Railway not long ago, and how the President of the Board of Trade had been pressed to interfere in the matter. The railway servants could only bring about a reduction of their hours in the way he pointed out, and if the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade could devise a scheme the effect of which would be to reduce the maximum of overtime work he would be doing good service to the country. No doubt, there would be great difficulty in getting rid of overtime alto ether in the case of railway servants, but he hoped that something would be done to diminish the existing evil.
  MR. Edward Harringtonsaid, that before the
  1706
  Motion was withdrawn he wished, as an Irish Member, to say that he agreed more with the putting forward of the Motion than with its withdrawal. He believed that this was one of those Motions designed to elicit a large amount of philosophical sympathy from both sides of the House, and which, having produced that effect, was withdrawn, and never came to anything. If, however, it were marked by a Division, in which the voices of hon. Members would be interpreted by votes, there would be something to go by. He considered that the hon. Member
  for Northumberland (Mr. Mac Innes) made a very sensible speech; but it must be remembered that hon. Members were not always able to divest themselves of those interests which they largely represented when they were called upon to discuss questions affecting those interests. The hon. Member was one of the Railway Directors who sat in the House, and what he (Mr. E. Harrington) complained of was, that in legislating here in the interests of working men they had opposite to them the monopolist, or his representative—who, though his views on questions of political principle might seem to be in harmony with theirs, was always opposed to them on social or economic questions. The hon. Member had said that it was impossible for a man to be employed for 20¼ hours on duty, and that in such a case it must be borne in mind that a driver would spend 10 hours at a terminus.
  MR. MACINNESsaid, that in the Return it was stated that an engine-driver was 20¼ hours on duty, and he had desired the House to understand that when the matter was inquired into that 20¼ hours meant that period of time from home. The man was only 10 hours at work, the remainder of the time being spent at a terminus, where he was able to take refreshments and to go to bed.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, that it was obvious if the man was on duty that he was required to keep his eyes open for 20¼ hours. ["No, no!"]Then why was he not allowed to go home? They bad it on the authority of the Railway Director who had just spoken that the man was 20¼ hours on duty. It was not a question of generosity on the part of the Railway Companies in dealing with their men, but it

  1707
  was a question how far this House should. be called on to interfere for the protection of the public so far as to prevent an engine driver being engaged for 20¼ hours. It was no answer to him to say that the train was drawn up at a station, or that for five or six hours the man was waiting at a siding, and had five or six hours' rest—in the snow, as it had been stated just now. Whether or not it was an accident caused that delay, it must be remembered that every hour after a certain number that a man was on duty added intensely to the irksomeness of his work. He wished to say that the Motion before the House had the sympathy of the Irish railway employés. These people were called Railway servants, although they were not, as might be supposed from the use of such a phrase, the employés of the State, and the title clearly implied that they ought to have the protection of the State. The moment, however, it was sought to extend to them the protection of the House, several hon. Members representing the railway interest on both sides, stood up and dealt with the question as simply an ordinary one affecting employers and employed. He certainly thought it would be in the interest of justice if the House to-night took a vote upon this question. He would call upon everyone who had no pecuniary or other interest to serve in this matter further than the interest he took in the safety of the public and the interest he took in his constituents, to insist upon a Division. If it was carried to a Division, he should certainly give it his support. He was dissatisfied. with the waste of time which had been indulged in eliciting statements of views which they knew every hon. Member held at the bottom of his heart, but which numbers of them abstained from acting on when they came to the practical test of a vote.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he begged leave to withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave,
  withdrawn.

CORRUPT LITERATURE,

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the Motion which stood in his name, and which was as follows:—
  1708
  "That this House deplores the rapid spread of demoralizing literature in this country, and is of opinion that the law against obscene publications and indecent pictures and prints should be vigorously enforced, and, if necessary, strengthened."
  He assured the House that nothing but an imperative sense of duty had led him to take up so painful and so disagreeable a subject—nothing but the knowledge that there had of late years been an immense increase of vile literature in London and throughout the country, and. that this literature was working terrible effects upon the morals of the young. Such havoc was it making that he could only look upon it as a gigantic national danger; indeed, he questioned. whether at the present time the people of this country were suffering more from the effect of an excessive use of strong drink than they were from the more subtle poison of vile and obscene literature. There was nothing that so corroded the human character, or so sapped the vitality of a nation, as the spread of this noxious and licentious literature, and he believed it was at the bottom of that shocking state of the streets of London, of which they were continual witnesses. The House would readily ask him for proof of his statement that there had been of late years a great development of this evil. He would, in the first place, refer to the public confession of one whom he charged to be the chief culprit in the spread of this pernicious literature—he referred to Mr. Vizetelly, the publisher of French novels, who in The Pall Mall Gazette a short time ago boasted that his house had. been the means of translating and selling in the English market more than 1,000,000 copies of the worst class of French novels. That statement was made in The Pall Mall Gazette without a word. of reprobation. Mr. Vizetelly boasted that at the present time he was selling in England 1,000 copies of the writings of Zola. He would quote a few lines from Mr. Vizetelly's statement—
  "We, of course, know of the immense popularity of Zola in France and most European countries, and were aware that there was a tolerably large sale for the wretchedly-translated and mutilated American editions of his works imported into this country. After much hesitation we determined to issue an unabridged of Nana, suppressing nothing, and merely throwing a slight veil over those passages to which particular exception was likely

  1709
  to be taken. The success of the work, although not rapid, was very complete, and induced us to reproduce the whole of Zola's published novels, and to purchase the English copyrights of all his new ones."
  He was quite aware it was inexpedient to advertise works of this kind, but in this case the sale was so enormous throughout the country, the facts were so generally known, that he saw no object now in preserving silence. Of the character of these works he would say nothing more than that he believed nothing more diabolical had ever been written by the pen of man. These novels were only fit for swine, and their constant perusal must turn the mind into something akin to a sty. The Saturday Review, a short time ago—
  "Directed the attention of the police to the fact that books which no shop dare expose in Paris, or even in Brussels, are to be seen in windows in London. Books which have only escaped suppression in France through the astounding laxity which has allowed some parts of Paris to become nearly impassable to decent people—on the showing of Parisian papers themselves—are translated and openly advertised."
  Some hon. Members might say that The Saturday Review was something of a purist, but no one would make such an accusation against Society, one of the society papers. This paper said, on the 21st of April last—
  "But of late has come a brutal change over this spirit of not too innocent fun, and the name of the worker of the transformation is Realism, and Zola is his Prophet. Realism, according to latter-day French lights, means nothing, means nothing short of sheer beastliness; it means going out of the way to dig up foul expressions to embody filthy ideas; it means not only the old insinuation of petty intrigue, but the laying bare of social sores in their most loathsome forms; it means the alternation of the brutal directness of the drunken operative of to-day with the flabby sensuality of Corinth in the past. In a word, it is dirt and horror pure and simple; and the good-humoured Englishman, who might smilingly characterize the French novel as 'rather thick' will be disgusted and tired with the inartistic garbage which is to be found in Zola's La Terre. Yet Messrs. Vizetelly, of Catherine Street, Strand, are allowed with impunity to publish an almost word for word translation of Zola's bestial chef d'œuvre. In the French original its sins were glaring enough in all conscience, but the English version needs but a chapter's perusal to make one sigh for something to take the nasty taste away."
  He would now read a few lines as to a very painful incident; at least it struck him as a very painful incident. A writer in The Sentinel said—
  1710
  "The only acquaintance which the writer of this article has with Zola's novels is from two pages of one of the most notorious of them placed open in the window of a well-known bookseller in the city of London. The matter was of such a leprous character that it would be impossible for any young man who had not learned the Divine secret of self-control to have read it without committing some form of outward sin within twenty-four hours after. In this case a boy, apparently about fourteen Years old, was reading the book. The writer immediately went into the shop, and accosting the manager in a loud voice, demanded that he should step outside and see this boy reading this infernal book in your window.' The shop was full of customers, and the manager naturally looked thunder-struck. Half-an-hour afterwards, when the writer passed, the book was gone."
  Now, he asked were they to stand still while the country was wholly corrupted by literature of this kind. Were they to wait until the moral fibre of the English race was eaten out, as that of the French was almost. Look what such literature had done for France. It overspread that country like a torrent, and its poison was destroying the whole national life. France to-day was rapidly approaching the condition of Rome in the time of the Caesars. The philosophy of France to-day was "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." Some might have seen the very striking article on the present state of France in The Nineteenth Century. Mr. Myers, in the article entitled "The Disenchantment of France," pointed out that this kind of literature had led to the decay of all belief in a noble ideal of life, and the degradation into which what the late Mr. Matthew Arnold called the "Worship of the great goddess of Lubricity" had plunged the country, was vividly pourtrayed. Such garbage was simply death to a nation. Were they to wait till this deadly poison spread itself over English soil and killed the life of this great and noble people? Contrast our country with Germany. He passed. through Germany last autumn, and made many inquiries as to the social life of the country. Novels of the Zola type were forbidden to be sold; indeed Germany surrounded its children with safeguards which were wholly wanting in this country. Nothing to him was more melancholy than the garbage on which the children of London fed. The chief literature on which London children fed was what was called the penny dreadful and the penny novelette. An enormous

  1711
  circulation of these papers took place; they were sold by hundreds of tons weight; they were almost the entire staple of the reading of many hundreds of thousands of the children of the poor and even of respectable artizans and the middle class. He read some time ago in The Edinburgh Review an analysis of the type of street literature that was mainly devoured by the children of London. He would quote a few lines which he thought would impress everyone in the House, as they did him, with a most painful sense of the noxious effect of this unwholesome garbage. The writer in describing very fully the various classes of the cheap penny papers, said—
  "The feast spread for them is ready and abundant, but every dish is a false one, every condiment vile. Every morsel of food is doctored, every draught of wine is drugged; no true hunger is satisfied, no true thirst quenched; and the hapless guests depart with a depraved appetite, and a palate more than ever dead to every pure taste and every perception of what is good and true. Thus entertained and equipped, the wide army of the children of the poor are sent on their way, to take part in the great battle of life, with false views, false impressions, and foul aims. The pictures of men and women to whom they have been introduced are unreal and untrue. The whole drama of life as they see it is a lie from beginning to end, and in it they can play none but a vicious and unhappy part."
  Could anyone be surprised at the misery and degradation and immorality that abounded in London when he pictured to himself the intellectual food upon which the children had feasted for so many years? Need they wonder that they were rearing in London a population which to a large extent would prove a source of weakness to the nation? He regretted to say that in a great measure the Elementary Education Act had been a failure on account of the total want of safeguards to protect the children after they left school—on account of the innumerable temptations that surrounded them on every side, and amongst these temptations he ranked the sale of licentious literature, with which we were literally surfeited. This literature penetrated everywhere. He was informed there were men employed as agents going round to the middle class and upper schools of the country in order to place in the hands of boys and girls pictures of a vile kind and advertisements of a vile kind, so as to induce them to pur-
  1712
  chase these demoralizing works. He was told there was a well organized system of this kind which penetrated into nearly all the schools of the country. He came in contact with many persons who made it the business of their lives to try and rescue the young from these snares. Facts had been brought to his knowledge which had filled him with sadness, facts of so shocking a nature he could scarcely state them to the House. But one which he believed to be thoroughly authentic he would state; he had it from a lady who had investigated it with care and who had ascertained the true facts of the case. It had become the rule with a class of low booksellers in London to provide indecent literature for young girls, to offer them every inducement to come into the shops and read the books, to provide them with private rooms stocked with the vilest class of literature, where on making the small deposit of 6d. they were supplied with the literature. And he was told that in many cases these shops were in league with houses of the worst class, to which the girls when their minds were sufficiently polluted and depraved were consigned. This had become a trade carried on to such an extent that he was told there was one street in London where 10 shops were devoted to this purpose. He asked what the law of this country was doing? What were they doing to allow such abominations to continue? They debated and squabbled here about many matters of secondary interest. He maintained that this was a vital matter which lay at the very root of the nation's welfare, and he often wondered at the small amount of time this House spent on questions of this kind, and at the extreme difficulty with which any such question could be brought before the House. He could not conceive any subject with which Parliament, jealous of the highest interests of the nation, ought to be more anxious to deal wisely and rationally than such a question as this. In addition to these books—and if the Home Secretary chose to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, he would supply him with proof of all the statements he made—there was an immense circulation of lewd photographs and prints of every sort and kind of the very worst type. There was an organized system for sending

  1713
  these pictures over the country. Only to-day he was told of a case in which a gentleman in the country received an advertisement of boots and shoes from a house in London, and inside that was a small notice that on application photographs would be sent. He made an application, and a parcel of most indelicate photographs of nude females was sent to him. He (Mr. S. Smith) asserted that in England we suffered from mistaken ideas of liberty. A class of vile scoundrels came over to England simply because the freedom of our laws enabled them to carry on their nefarious trade which their own country probably would not allow. Within his knowledge there was a large number of persons in London who had been driven from abroad, who had suffered imprisonment, and who dare not live in their own countries, because their characters were so well known; they came here, and brought with them the vilest practices, and carried them on almost untouched. He was sorry to have to add to the papers which de-graded the public mind—certain of our sporting papers. He had looked over some of the sporting papers, and he was bound to say that such wretched non-sense, mixed up with a great deal of lewdness, as he found there, it had seldom been his lot to read. How any cultivated man, or rational man, could amuse himself with reading such wretched trash as was printed in some of the sporting papers, he could not understand. Again, when in India, he was surprised find on all the book-stalls an unlimited supply of French novels, and almost nothing else. He scarcely ever saw upon the stalls the book of any well known literary man; but he was told that the worst class of French novels were bought in tens of thousands, and were regarded as samples of European civilization. He would allude very briefly to another class of books. He had spoken mainly of the cheap literature sold to the masses in immense quantities. He was told there was also a very expensive class of abominable literature now published in London, and that there was a society devoted to the publication of this depraved and lascivious literature. There was one book which had recently been published at 10 guineas. Many Members would know the book to which he
  1714
  referred, It contained the most abominable suggestions, and there was so large a run upon it at the present time that copies were being sold at 26 guineas each. The author, he believed, was on the point of bringing out five additional volumes. He was told that nothing more loathsome had ever been printed; but he supposed there were men of such depraved mind who were only too eager to regale themselves with such filth. Why was it the law did not touch these things? The law had been put in force against the paper called Town Talk, and he congratulated the Home Secretary upon the fact that a very bad number of a very bad paper had brought about a prosecution. He noticed that 17 vendors of the paper were fined last week, and very properly so. But he was not aware that the owner or publisher of the paper was fined. Somehow or other our laws touched the weaker and not the stronger; they always struck at the agent and not the author. He asked why was this 10 guinea book, admitted by everyone to be most detestable, allowed to be purchased by the leading clubs of London, and allowed to be circulated in London without the publisher or author being prosecuted? That was a question to which he should like an answer. If there was such a demand for this class of literature, at its present high price, was it not perfectly obvious that in a few years time it would descend to the masses? If it paid the publisher to circulate it at 10 guineas, the time would come when he would publish it at a guinea, and perhaps at 1s., and then there would be an enormous overflow of this new class of poison. He was told that catalogues of these books were sent almost all over the country, that the trade was so organized that people were tempted in all parts—in the most remote parts—of the country by the agents of this vile trade. The streets were polluted with the advertisements of quack doctors. One of the greatest evils of late years had been the great increase of quack advertisements of a filthy kind. It was remarked to him the other day, by a gentleman who had spent much time on the Continent, that whereas in Germany he never knew one of these indecent advertisements to be thrust in his hand, when he came to London such advertisements were thrust into his hand frequently.

  1715
  The well known clauses in the Metropolitan Police Act did not in any way touch the pernicious class of literature which was strewn broadcast in the London streets—namely, pamphlets issued by quacks, and thrust into the hands of every passer-by, and which made statements with regard to secret diseases which were frequently untrue, and which were mostly intended to induce to impurity of life, and also by working upon the fears of the readers to terrify them into consulting the medical quacks whose names might be on the pamphlets. He commended to the notice of the Home Secretary this weighty collection of vile literature, this social nuisance, which, he thought, ought to be dealt with in a far more stringent manner than it had been hitherto. Now he came to the daily Press. His firm conviction was that all these evils had been greatly aggravated, greatly increased, in the last few years by the action of some of our newspapers with regard to the reports of low divorce cases which they had published with such fulness. He believed that the reports of vile divorce cases, published with loathsome plenitude, gave an immense impetus to the demand for indecent literature. They had created a taste for it; because there was this characteristic about this class of reading, that the more a man read, the more he wanted to read. There was no doubt that the loathsome revelations of the Divorce Court some years ago had greatly increased the appetite for indecent literature, and would make it more difficult to stop its spread. If we, as a nation, decided upon new methods of stamping out this horrible disease, this pestilence, we must take some means of purifying the daily Press, and putting limitations on the power of publishing the details of Divorce Court proceedings. The House might ask what remedy he would apply. He would observe the law as it stood, for he thought it was sufficiently stringent. The Act called Lord Campbell's Act, if vigorously worked, would do a great deal to suppress this class of literature; but it was not vigorously worked, it had been allowed to fall into disuse. The administration of the law had become so lax that it was hardly of any value at all. Twenty years ago, no London publisher dared to print and put in circulation such books as were now
  1716
  published; they would have been indicted at once, and sharply and severely punished. But, from a false notion of liberty, we had allowed this plague to spread on all sides, and now many people thought it was too late to do any good. He could not assent to that. He believed that was the pessimism of despair. He believed that if we had an evil to grapple with we should go forward, in the name of God, and grapple with it. Let us attempt to do so, and he believed we would not do so in vain. He was told that magistrates who formerly were perfectly willing to initiate proceedings against the publishers and vendors of this literature now very frequently refused to do so. A case was mentioned to him yesterday in which some vile pictures were submitted to a magistrate, and he declared he could not encourage proceedings in respect of them, on the ground that it would be an interference with what was conceived to be the liberty of the British subject. He (Mr. S. Smith) believed in liberty to do right, but not in liberty to do wrong. He believed that liberty to deprave a fellow-man was much more honoured in the breach than in the observance. He considered the police were very inactive, and that they allowed things to go on which ought not to be permitted. We ought to have a Public Prosecutor. He did not know where the official called the Public Prosecutor was. He believed there was some one known by that title; but he seemed to be asleep, he seemed to have had his wings clipped. It might be said to him (Mr. S. Smith) that private persons ought to institute proceedings. But it was very disagreeable for private persons to take action, because it brought them into a great deal of odium. He believed that we had not done our duty; we ought not to have stood by while this terrible pestilence was spreading throughout the country. In other countries, the State undertook this duty; and he held that, on the whole, it was a much better and thorough way of dealing with this evil. What we wanted to do was to create a sounder public opinion. He believed this House could do that. A good discussion in the House, and a strong condemnation of these detestable practices, would have immense effect on the country. There were many who were wishing to get a little encouragement to put the law in

  1717
  force. He was happy to think the Home Secretary thoroughly sympathized with him. He did not bring the matter forward in any attitude of opposition to the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government. Indeed, he believed the debate would strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary. He was happy to think the right hon. Gentleman was willing to advance so far as the House would encourage him. He hoped the House would send forth such an expression of opinion to-night as would strengthen the hands of the officers of the law in coping with this enormous evil.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLseconded the Motion.Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House deplores the rapid spread of demoralising Literature in this Country, and is of opinion that the Law against obscene publications and indecent pictures and prints should be vigorously enforced and, if necessary, strengthened."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had done a great service to the country by calling attention to this subject, and he trusted the Government would accept the Motion. Some years ago the then Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce, had had his attention called to obscene prints extensively circulated about the streets, and had taken effective action with regard to them.
  MR. DE LISLEsaid, he did not propose to make a speech in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and for the reason that he had no plan to suggest, or any counsel to give, which would enable the Government to deal with this monstrous evil. But it was a matter of great satisfaction to him to be able to raise his voice, along with that of his hon. Friend who had preceded him, in support of a Motion of the kind. He believed that the greatness and the happiness of the nation depended chiefly upon the purity of its morals, and he did not know of a reason which any sane or prudent man could allege in favour of the propagation of indecent and demoralizing literature. He trusted that some endeavour would be made to see whether it was not possible to cope with the terrible evil which the Motion referred to. Un-
  1718
  fortunately, the evil affected the class of persons who were least able to resist it. Those who were rich and had comfortable homes might keep the evil from their doors; but the poor, who had little scope for the higher enjoyments of life, naturally picked up the literature which was nearest at hand. It was a terrible evil that this filth should be thrown in the faces of the people day after day; and therefore he hoped that the House, if it did express an opinion on the matter, would speak most emphatically, and be prepared, if necessary, to limit that liberty of publication of which in most respects we were so justly proud. The highest duty of Conservatives was to safeguard the morals of the people; indeed, he was convinced that if they allowed the corruption of moral sentiment which had been going on for years to continue, there was no system of government which could be erected which would long stave off the threatening clouds of revolution.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was quite sure there was enough in the arguments and facts brought forward to justify the introduction of the subject in that House. He expressed the satisfaction with which he had observed, as a Member for the last two Sessions of the Committee on Police and Sanitary Bills, the growing desire of Local Authorities to take more effective powers against the distribution of demoralizing advertisements and tracts. Local Authorities were taking steps in that matter, and clauses had been introduced into a considerable number of their Police Bills to enable them to deal with it, and, so far as he know, this had been done without objection from any Member of that House. There was a kind of literature—circulars headed with scriptural texts, and looking like religious tracts—which in effect, though not in name, was demoralizing. He must protest against the action of those well-meaning people who, in their endeavours to improve the condition of the women of India, thought it right to circulate in English homes and among English women and girls a class of literature that was calculated to do permanent harm. He would earnestly entreat them, while thus zealous for the purity of Indian women, not to violate the scantity of English homes.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)said, that it was beyond doubt that there had been of recent years a considerable growth of evil and pernicious literature, and that its sale took place with more openness than was formerly the case. The French romantic literature of modern days, of which cheap editions were openly sold in this country, had reached a lower depth of immorality than had ever before been known. In comparing such literature with classical literature, it must be borne in mind that while the latter was written with no evil purpose, the former was written with the object of directing attention to the foulest passions of which human nature was capable, and to depict them in the most attractive forms. Such literature was, in his opinion, calculated to do great harm to the moral health of the country. But it was not only French literature that ought to be condemned, much harm was also done by what the hon. Member had termed the penny dreadfuls, the quack advertisements, and the full reports of divorce cases which appeared in the public daily Press. All such classes of publications were pernicious in the extreme, and they ought to be brought within the reach of the law in every civilized country. It must, however, be remembered that the law in this country was a tolerably effective weapon as it now stood, and that under the powers conferred by Lord Campbell's Act, by the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, and by the Vagrants Act, ample powers were given which, if effectively used, would prevent the circulation of immoral literature. The reason why the law was not more frequently put in force was the difficulty that was experienced in getting juries to draw a hard and fast line and to convict in all cases that crossed that line. He had given careful attention to this question, and he should deprecate handing over to the Public Prosecutor, or anybody else, the task of deciding what was the strait and narrow line which divided what was punishable, criminal, and obscene within the meaning of the law, and what was merely indelicate and coarse. The public judgment was a safer guide than that of any official, and if the general moral sense of the community did not compel individuals
  1720
  to prosecute, no good would be done by trying to create an artificial moral sense by the action of the Public Prosecutor. The hon. Member had done well in directing public attention to the insiduous mischief which resulted from publications which trembled on the verge of indecency and which did much to vitiate the public taste. It would be most unwise and dangerous to direct public attention to certain obscure publications of a filthy character known only to the few by instituting a State prosecution, and thus give that wide advertisement which those who brought them out would desire more than anything else. The hon. Member would do great service if he would give the public authority the facts which he had stated to the House, which, he confessed, were new to himself. It was, indeed, a most deplorable thing that literature of this kind should be supplied to little girls or circulated among boys. There could be no doubt that such acts were within the Criminal Law, and he would certainly on reasonably good evidence direct proceedings if any such facts were brought to his knowledge. He could give the same assurance with respect to advertisements of vicious literature. There was no machinery by which the Public Prosecutor could get information of this kind, and he did not believe that public opinion would tolerate any system of organized spies for the purpose. If, however, everything were brought to the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor by individuals within whose cognizance such crimes came, no time would be lost in putting the law in to motion. But serious evils arose from the failure of attempts to obtain conviction upon such charges. So far, however, as he could influence the Public Prosecutor, who was, to some extent, independent of any Public Office and acted on his own discretion, he would certainly urge prosecutions in any cases in which it did not appear that more harm than good would result. He had in his official capacity to consider the case not only of obscene but of blasphemous literature. But on inquiry he found that the offending publications were so contemptible and obscure that much more harm than good would be done by dragging them into the light of day. He was sure, however, that the hon Member and all those who had honest convictions would

  1721
  not shrink from the slight personal inconvenience of putting the law in motion in any case of real public mischief. He had no word to say against the Motion so far as it expressed the hon. Member's opinions on the subject itself, though he could not accept it if it implied any censure of Public Officials.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion by entering upon the legal part of it, so well expounded by the Home Secretary; but he would offer a few remarks in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), for which he, in common with every Member of the House, had entire sympathy. All were anxious to put a stop to the circulation of this abominable literature, but in this country, and in every country of Europe, the people had been educated to think, and some literature must be provided to meet the intellectual craving. He was glad to say that the spread of healthy literature in this country surpassed anything else of the kind ever known or dreamed of. Hundreds of thousands of standard works were published at so low a price as 6d. and even 3d. a volume, and the demand for such was enormous. It was not surprising that in this prolific soil some weeds grew up, but he hoped, and really believed, there was not that corruption of the mind of the country going on such as his hon. Friend feared. There was a large demand and a large supply of literature of every class. On the registers of our Sunday schools were the names of 6,000,000 children, a larger number than attended day schools, notwithstanding the compulsory powers of enforcing attendance. Was it not a fact that every one of those children possessed a copy of the scriptures, and were they not supplied with healthy literature at extremely low prices, or that it was lent to them through the libraries? Here was the antidote for this moral poison—the establishment of free libraries in all our large towns. In that respect the Metropolis was behind almost all the large towns of England—there was less public life, less civic spirit in London than anywhere else. As compared with our northern towns, the difference was one hardly realized. In two or three towns with which he was best acquainted—take Nottingham for instance—the Free Library circulated
  1722
  more than 1,000 volumes every day, and in Sheffield something like 500,000 books were lent every year. And that was only a part of the supply, which was supplemented by other institutions, such as mechanics' institutes, clubs, and Colleges, which added a supply of healthy literature to sound teaching. Here he saw the real antidote, the supply of healthy literature, and an intellectual training to preserve the young from the pernicious effects of the poisonous stuff to be met with. Something was said by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) in reference to the circulation among Members of Parliament of pamphlets in reference to what was going on in India and elsewhere.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he merely alluded to publications of an apparently religious character, and which he had no doubt were earnestly and sincerely meant to promote the cause of religion and morality, but which contained matter which must be most pernicious and injurious to the moral sense of the young.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he understood the hon. Member to refer to the circulation of letters in reference to practices alleged to be carried on in India.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he mentioned no names, and would rather not mention names, because that had the effect of advertising the sheets. He was speaking of periodical publications, intended, no doubt, to be of a religious character.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would accept the statement in the broadest way the hon. Member would desire to make it; but this he might say—that they—the Legislators—ought to know, and ought not to be afraid to know, the truth, and the whole truth. Whatever was done within the British Empire, discreditable though it might be to our legislation and our moral nature, the House should know of it, and ought not to be afraid to know of it. They ought not to shrink from full knowledge of the facts that had been brought to the notice of Members, and though he should be sorry indeed if some of the circulars that had been placed in his hands recently should fall into the hands of young persons in his house, yet he was glad to know it if such things were done, and under the sanction of our

  1723
  countrymen, the rulers in our great Dependency. Every Member of the House should feel the full responsibility of tolerating such infamy. ["Hear, hear!"] It was in reference to that that he wished to say a word or two. He was anxious as anyone to suppress the publication of anything suggestive of indecency, yet, if indecent practices were carried on, if such things were done with the authority of our countrymen, Members of Parliament at least ought to know of it, if only that they might put an end to the practices, rather than to put an end to the statements that such practices existed.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, for many years he had taken great interest in this most important question, and he sincerely thanked the hon. Member for Flint-shire (Mr. S. Smith) for bringing the subject forward in the manner he had. Thanks, also, were due to the Home Secretary for the fair and candid manner in which he had met the Motion and expressed his desire, speaking with legal authority, to put down the pernicious growth of impure literature among us. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Flintshire, he (Mr. Mark Stewart) could not help thinking—and he had mentioned it before—that we must mainly look to other than legal process to check the spread of this literature. We should look to those large agencies, those societies that had done so much in the past, and would continue their work, to spread abroad the means of becoming acquainted with healthy literature. Of course, it was difficult, when a prosecution was instituted, to obtain a conviction on the merits of the case, and failure to convict increased the evil. But in town and country those agencies to which he referred were exercising a most salutary effect by depots in towns, by colporteurs in country districts. In too many of the lowest parts of towns unwholesome literature circulated, because it was all that was at hand; but the efforts of the associations for the spread of literature of a wholesome class were directed to inducing shops to supply the better class of reading, and there was no unwillingness on the part of traders to do this when it was shown to them that it was their interest to do so. That he had on the testimony of a friend who visited the
  1724
  back streets and slums with that object in view, and had paid some 20,000 visits to shops which sold the bad reading for the masses. Those interested should give every encouragement to the good work. Meanwhile the schoolmaster was abroad; every child could read, and was eager to read, and should have within reach that which was, while interesting, instructive and religious in tone. The work was difficult, yet could be carried on by judiciously selecting centres and providing shops, stalls, and colporteurs to meet and to encourage demand. Much could be done in that way to promote the view expressed in the Motion. With regard to what had been said about the circulation of papers in reference to matters that had been commented upon in the House, though it might be useful to bring such matters to light, yet it should be done by some less indiscriminate method than had been adopted.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid, there was much in the speech of the Home Secretary that must give general satisfaction; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) had made one reference as to which some explanation would have been desirable. His hon. Friend referred to a recent prosecution for the sale of a certain publication, and rather pointedly challenged the Home Secretary to say why he did not proceed against the publisher, instead of the lads who were selling the publication. Unless there was a good reason for it—and for aught he knew there might be a sufficient answer—it did seem to him rather unfair to allow the prosecution of the sellers, while the greater sinner who made the larger profit, the publisher, was left untouched. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield for his remarks in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Wigan, and as one who had had a good deal to do with such matters, he could assure the latter that it was with the greatest regret this literature was circulated to Members in reference to the working of the Contagious Diseases Act; but it was the only way to make the truth known, and the only way to stop the dissemination of such statements was to put an end to the horrible system that rendered such dissemination necessary.
  MR. S. SMTTHsaid, he desired to take the sense of the House on the question, not in the spirit of any censure whatever upon the Government, for he entirely sympathized with and heartily reciprocated the language of the Home Secretary; nothing could be more satisfactory. To the Motion, be believed, there was no opposition, and it would, no doubt, be accepted unanimously. This unanimous judgment of the House would have a very useful effect out-of-doors.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS—PARLIAMEN TARY GRANTS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. KERANSsaid, in rising to address the House for the first time, he would offer no apology, for he had been a silent Member for two years; but he would ask indulgence while he endeavoured, with brevity, to put the case in support of the Resolution of which he had given Notice. As nearly every Member of the House would be aware, on reading the Resolution, it was practically directed to what was called Article 114 of the Education Code. That Article was founded on previous enactments, and the effect of it, briefly, was to restrict to a very large extent the Parliamentary grants made to voluntary schools by the Article; if the subscriptions and fees did not amount to the sum claimed as a Parliamentary grant, then by so much was the Parliamentary grant reduced. To begin with, he might say that he had had the advantage of a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who had, to a large extent, made him understand exactly how that came about. When the Education Act was passed, there was no school entitled to a grant of more than 15 s. 9d., and it was scarcely conceived possible that any school would reach the limit of 17 s. 6d. But owing mainly to the establishment of board schools, and the impetus given to education in a large majority of schools, that limit was reached or exceeded. But it must be obvious to any hon. Member who had considered the question, that now that the grant was so often exceeded, there must be numerous cases of hardship connected with its allocation, that while in richer districts it might be easy to raise subscriptions to equal the
  1726
  Parliamentary grant, in poor districts it was extremely hard to do so. That applied not only to Church schools, but even more severely to those belonging to other and poorer Bodies. He would ask the House to consider whether it was fair or just in practice that a poor district, where the rateable value of property was extremely low, should be mulcted in a certain amount of the Parliamentary grant, while in a richer district, where rates were high, the whole grant was retained without difficulty. It was such a practical injustice that no man could avoid seeing it. In the Education Act of 1870, Section 97, Sub-section 2, it was provided that the grant—
  "Shall not, in any year, exceed the income of the year derived from voluntary subscriptions from school fees or from other sources except the Parliamentary grant."
  No doubt, Parliament saw the injustice of this hard and fast line, for in the Act of 1870, Section 19, Sub-section 1, it enacted that such grant should not be reduced in any one year by reason of its excess above the income of the school if the amount of the grant did not exceed 17 s. 6d. per child in average attendance, but should not exceed that except in proportion to the amount raised from school fees or other sources than the Parliamentary grant. He drew attention to the latter part of the Sub-section, for it provided that a school which had an endowment was entitled to the grant, whereas one would think that in the case of an endowment the amount of that endowment would be deducted from the Parliamentary grant. Such, however, was the present state of the law. He should be very reluctant to obtrude this matter on the House, if only for the reason that a Royal Commission was at the present time sitting to inquire into the subject of education; but he was still more reluctant, because the Vice President of the Council had given him reason to believe that the Government would consider with all earnestness this question of grants to voluntary schools. He would not detain the House longer; he would merely ask the Vice President to say whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to deal with the matter, which was one of extreme importance to the voluntary schools of the country. There were some doctrinaires who would have all education free, and would suppress

  1727
  all voluntary schools; but even those doctrinaires would admit that the time had not arrived yet for imposing such an additional burden as this would involve upon the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country. Meanwhile, until public opinion was ripe for such a change as that, they should do their best to remedy the defects in the Act and to complete the educational system on its present lines as far as possible with the growing demands of the country.
  MR. TOMLINSONin seconding the Motion, said, he did not consider that any apology was needed for bringing it forward or supporting it; nor did he think that the possibility of the establishment, at some future time, of a general system of free schools was any reason against bringing forward any tangible and existing grievance. He was glad to have the opportunity of referring to the subject, for it was one that affected his own constituency. It was unnecessary again to travel over the explanation his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kerans) had given of the manner in which the hardship to voluntary schools arose; but he should like to point out how the position of voluntary schools was affected as compared with board schools, and for that purpose he took two cases—a town having a school board and board schools; and one, like his own constituency, without a school board or board schools. The board school received its Government grant, and was never in danger of having that grant diminished, for it had always the power of going to the rates to make up a deficiency in other resources. But, on the other hand, there might be a school which, to its credit, had been carrying on an excellent system of education for years, put in a position of disadvantage by reason of the establishment of a board school, and, in the result, the voluntary school was mulcted of its fair share of the Government grant, gradually brought into a condition of decay, and the rates, as in London, were very largely increased by the consequent discontinuance of efficient voluntary schools. Where there were no board schools, there might be schools not rich enough to find from their own resources the requisite proportionate sum to meet the Government grant; they might be good schools, might give an education equal to any board school, but yet might
  1728
  find themselves in imminent danger of losing part of the Government grant, being in a poor neighbourhood and not having subscriptions or endowments to supplement the school pence. The education might be as good or better than that in the schools receiving the full Government grant; and yet, because they were unable to raise the sum equal to the Government grant, they were made still poorer by being mulcted of a portion of that grant. They had no power to call in the aid of the rates, and were deprived of that Government assistance their efficiency entitled them to, and were thus punished for their efficiency. In this there was a distinct hardship. He knew this matter was under the consideration of the Royal Commission, which he hoped would report before long, and that then the House would deal thoroughly with what was a serious mischief; but, at the same time, there was an advantage in calling public attention to what was keenly felt as a serious hardship to voluntary schools.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the principle of the Parliamentary Grant in aid of Voluntary Schools is unjust, and that the Grant should be allocated rather in proportion to the poverty of School Districts than their wealth."—(Mr. Kerans.)
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Kerans), who had brought forward the question, had himself mentioned that a Royal Commission was now inquiring into educational matters, and he must be aware that among the many thorny and difficult points with which that Commission had to deal, one of the most thorny and difficult of them related to the present Parliamentary grants and their hearing on board schools and the voluntary schools of the country. His hon. Friend would therefore not be surprised if he declined at present to enter upon the subject which he had introduced, seeing that the Report of the Commission would probably be placed in their hands before many weeks were over. When the recommendations of the Commissioners came to be considered, that question of the grant would, no doubt, have to receive the attention of the Government and of Parliament before long. Although he

  1729
  (Sir William Hart Dyke) must now refrain from entering into the broader aspect of the question raised by his hon. Friend, he might, however, assure him, in regard to some minor points, that the interests of the voluntary schools in the poorer districts had not been neglected by the Education Department. The Department had for years strongly urged on the inspectors that in the distribution of the merit grant reasonable allowance should be made for special circumstances—such as the shifting, or scattered, or poor character of the population of the district, or any other circumstance which made attendance at school difficult; and those instructions had been invariably followed—a fact which had proved of some advantage to the poorer class of schools. Again, Article 111 of the Code dealt with exceptionally poor districts with populations of 300 and 200. He found that in 1878, 614 schools connected with the Church of England were dealt with under the £10 grant, which applied to the case of 300 population; and 249 schools under the larger grant of £15 where the population was 200, making together a total of 863 schools in 1878 receiving a total grant of £9,742. In 1887, on the other hand, there were 1,261 schools dealt with under the £10 grant and 811 under the £15 grant; the total amount of the grant they received being £24,968, as against £9,742 in 1878. Another point in which some further advantage had been given to the voluntary schools was in regard to drawing, as to which some change was made in the Code last year. In conclusion, he could assure his hon. Friend that when the Report of the Commission had been presented, the grave subject which his hon. Friend had brought forward would be fully and adequately considered by the Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  OFFICE UNDER THE CROWN (VA CATING OF SEATS) BILL.
  (Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Mr. Edmond Robertson, Mr. Seager Hunt.)
  [BILL 98.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, he feared it was hopeless to attempt to move the second reading of the Bill at the very end of a Sitting—[Cries of "Move!"]—or to do much to win votes or sustain the arguments in favour of the Bill; yet he would essay to do what he could in the few minutes at his disposal. The Bill, no doubt, dealt with an important Constitutional principle; and it would ill become him to minimize its importance, though it occupied but four lines. He was quite aware that, dealing with what had long been a recognized Parliamentary custom, sonic apology was due from a junior Member for proposing to make such a Constitutional change. But, perhaps, a private Member was more able than an occupant of the Front Benches to advocate the Bill, inasmuch as right hon. Gentlemen might be suspected of some sinister motive, begotten of the desire to relieve themselves of the inconvenience of going through reelection when taking Office. As time was fast running out, perhaps he had better content himself with simply moving the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, it was rather a strong measure to ask the House, at such an hour, to introduce such an important innovation in the Parliamentary and Constitutional practice of the country. Perhaps his hon. Friend was not aware that similar proposals to his had been made on previous occasions, and had always been opposed by the Leaders of either Party. It might be true that the original motives for that law had disappeared; but other reasons not to be neglected had come into play. Of course, as could readily be imagined, causes and combinations in Parliament might give rise to well-founded popular jealousy, and continue to afford justification for the principle that was attacked in the Bill. He was, perhaps, better able than others of his Colleagues who sat on that Bench to discuss the question, for he was not one of those whose position was affected by the operation of the law; but he did not think that his hon. Friend

  1731
  seriously meant that the expediency of such an important Constitutional change could be argued at such a time, and still less that it could be assented to without discussion. It was a matter that required the well-considered judgment of the House before any such proposal could be entertained.
  DR. TANNERsaid, bearing in mind the fact that a Bill would shortly come before the consideration of the House to provide a right hon. and gallant Gentleman who sat on the Front Bench with a salary in connection with a post that had lately been manufactured for him, he really thought this subject might have called forth a more fitting response from some Minister on the Front Bench. [Laughter.] It was in accordance with the usual treatment of Ireland by the dominant Party that Irish Members and Irish Bills should find a lack of courtesy and consideration. [Laughter.] But, to imitate the Chief Secretary, he treated the laughs and sneers of the Tory Party with the respect they deserved. When a Member of the House obtained a position of lucrative importance in the Government, he certainly ought to vacate his seat, in order that the constituency might express their judgment whether he was worthy of the reward, and fit to continue their Representative. The appointment of a Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the provision of his salary was not now before the House; but it would be dealt with when it was. But when a right hon. and gallant Gentleman had such a position manufactured for him, and when a Bill like this was introduced, he sincerely hoped it was introduced in sober earnest, and not as a mere cat's paw to be brought on late at night, in order that a Member of the Government might get up and say it was too late for serious consideration. He had been in the habit of opposing Bills brought forward at a late hour; but here was a subject that really called for a speedy determination.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Bill, and he felt very much disappointed at the way in which it had been received. The Bill was intended to abolish a practice obsolete, useless, and injurious to the country—
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 8th June.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' PENSIONS) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Merchant Seamen (Widows' and Orphans' Pensions) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Rochester Bishopric* (98); Glebe Lands* (100).
Second Reading—Suffragans' Act Amendment (83); Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Amendment (91).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue (95).
Referred to Select Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches* (40), referred to Select Committee on Land Transfer Bill.
Committee—Tithe Rentcharge Recovery and Variation (54).
Committee—Report—Tithe Rentcharge* (53).
Third Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, Amendment* (68), and passed.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY AND VARIATION BILL.—(No. 54.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Recovery of Tithe Rent-Charge.
Clause 1 (Abolition, except in certain cases of distress for recovery of rent-charge) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Procedure for obtaining order of County Court for payment of tithe rentcharge).
LORD HERRIES, in moving to amend Sub-section 3 by inserting words to limit the right of the titheowner to three-fourths of the net profit of the land, thus giving the landlord some compensation for the expenses of management and maintenance of the laud, said it might be objected that the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 was a final settlement of the question; but to that he would answer that the Legislature had frequently interfered and had altered the incidence of tithes, and the introduction of this measure itself proved that the tithe commutation was not considered to be a settlement of the question. It was always supposed that the land would be three times the value of the rent-charge; but he had been informed that in some cases the landlords had to pay as tithes more than their interest in their land was worth; and it certainly was extraordinary that the person who was entitled to only one-tenth of the produce of the land had a right to take the whole of the profits derived from the land. It was a fact that the natural productiveness of the land was gradually diminishing, and that it had to be supplemented by the use of stimulating and expensive manure. Was it fair in such circumstances that the tithe-owners should take the whole of the profits of the soil? In the interest of agriculture he moved. this Amendment, because he thought the landowner should be allowed to take some part of the profits, and that the tithe-owner should not take the whole. Land had diminished in value, and his Amendment went to this—that in a case where the rent charged so nearly approached the net profits, the landowner should be allowed to retain one-fourth of them to pay his expenses of cultivation. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he could not assent to the Amendment. He did not think that the definition of profits given by the noble Lord was quite correct. He understood the noble Lord to desire to make this deduction from the profits in order to repay the landowner for his manage-
1596
ment. But the object which the noble Lord had in view would be satisfied by the clause as it stood. In point of principle, however, profits had nothing to do with the rent-charge, which had never been a charge upon the profits of the land. It was open to the noble Lord to say that the rights existing should be taken away; but if the noble Lord advocated that principle, it should be adopted after a very full inquiry, and then their Lordships might consider whether they would accept the results to which that inquiry would lead them. If land should go out of cultivation there would be no profits, but there would be a right to tithe notwithstanding.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not see that the clause reserved any profits to the landowner. No doubt, the noble Marquess was quite right in saying that to deal with this question as the noble Lord proposed would be a large matter; but he thought that this clause as it stood would lead to the question being re-opened, because it never could have been the intention of any individual to give to the Church the whole profits of the land. He fully admitted that as the law stood the right of the titheowner was as the noble Marquess had stated; but it was not always advisable or even possible to exact your pound of flesh although entitled to it. It seemed to him that the arguments that as the law stood the titheowner might absorb the whole of the net profits of the land pointed irresistibly to an alteration of the law.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEobserved, when tithe was commuted a Parliamentary settlement was made between the landowner and the titheowner by which tithe was made a rent-charge on the land and took priority of the landlord's interest. The present was not a proper occasion for going into the question, whether that was a satisfactory settlement; if such a question were at any time raised, he did not doubt that it could be shown; and he thought it had been already demonstrated that, on the whole, taking everything into account, the landowner had been a large gainer by that arrangement. It was perfectly clear that the titheowner's rent-charge now took precedence over the landlord's interest on the land as much as any other rent-charge would do. To say that because the landlord might get nothing

1597
out of the land he was entitled to have transferred to him one-fourth part of the titheowner's rent-charge, seemed to him to mean simply appropriation by the tithepayer of part of the titheowner's property.
LORD HERRIESsaid, he could not admit that under all circumstances the tithe rent-charge must remain as at present. It might be that, owing to change in the value of money, 100 years hence the tithe rent-charge might be worth more than the land itself. Could it be contended that under those circumstances the titheowner was to be allowed to have the whole property in the land? He did not wish to press his Amendment to a Division unless it was likely to be supported by the House.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive, agreed to.
Reduction of Averages.
Clause 10 (Calculation of tithe rent-charge on triennial instead of septennial average of prices).
On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, an Amendment made to the effect that the substitution of a three years' average for the seven years' average should not affect extraordinary tithes.
An Amendment moved providing that the computation should be made as respects the average prices for the three years' ending on the 25th of December, 1889.—(The Lord Addington.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not admit that the clause as it stood did any injury to the titheowner, because it was impossible to say what the prices within the next few years would be, although the indications were rather in favour of a rise. He was, however, quite willing to accept the proposal of his noble Friend.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he wished to express his gratitude on behalf of the clergy, to the noble Marquess, for acceding to a proposal which might tend to ameliorate their condition.
Amendment agreed to; other Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 99.)

SUFFRAGANS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
(NO. 83.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE (Dr. HARVEY GOODWIN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it was intended to remedy the defects of an Act of Henry VIII., which had proved to be a very useful Act, enabling Bishops to be consecrated to assist Diocesan Bishops. That Act, unfortunately, contained a list of towns from which the titles of Suffragan Bishops could be taken, and some of these towns, as might be imagined, were totally inapplicable to the altered conditions of society. For example, the Bishop of Bedford was really a Bishop for East London, and the Bishop of Marlborough had no connection with the town from which he derived his title. What, however, brought the anomaly most vividly to his mind was the proposal to appoint a suffragan to the Bishop of Ripon by a title derived from Penrith, which was in his own diocese. But since he had introduced his Bill he had discovered that a Bill with a similar object was introduced in "another place" three months ago. This other Bill, however, went further than the one for which he was asking a second reading, and proposed to enable bishops with incongruous titles to change their names into more suitable ones. It also differed from his own Bill in allowing gentlemen already in episcopal orders to be appointed Suffragan Bishops. When he made this discovery he rather hesitated whether he should go on with the Bill, but inasmuch as no progress had been made in the House of Commons with that Bill, he resolved to proceed with his Bill and then to take counsel with the members of the other House who had been good enough to interest themselves in the question. He, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would be good enough to give his little Bill a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 91.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that this Bill was intended to remedy an omission of the Act of last Session. By an Act of 1860 it was provided that where the lease prohibited assignment without the lessor's assent, no assignment should be valid unless sanctioned by the lessor's consent in writing, or by his being a party to the assignment, or endorsing his consent on the instrument. It frequently happened that the assignment was made with the verbal consent of the lessor or established by his subsequent acquiescence and dealings. Such assignees were excluded from the operation of the Act of last Session, unless the lessees had obtained the written consent of the lessor, or a memorandum sanctioning the assignment had been engrossed on the lease. The Bill proposed that whenever the lessor, by the receipt of rent or in any other way, had virtually recognized the assignment, the assignee might come into Court and claim the benefit of the Act. As the Act stood, the same result might be brought about indirectly by the lessee's claiming the benefit which his assignee would enjoy, and the Bill, therefore, provided that what might be now done circuitously should be done in a more straightforward manner.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the Government would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, which would remedy a defect that undoubtedly existed in the Land Act of last year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 95.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Marquess had stated, the other day, that the House of Lords had no practical power to deal either with the formation of Government or with the Revenue; and although we had an undoubted right to discuss and to vote on such matters, the noble Marquess was right as to our practical power; he, therefore, did not desire to raise any debate upon the facts of the case; but he might remark that he had observed a telegram in the newspapers stating that the French Ambassador, M. Waddington, had been instructed to make representations to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of their proposal in regard to bottled wines, and had informed his Government that the negotiations were proceeding favourably; and he, therefore, now wished to know whether, in the negotiations which had taken place, any satisfactory result had been arrived at through the modification made by Mr. Goschen in his proposals in the House of Commons as to the Wine Duties.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that undoubtedly there was a recognized and a very real grievance in the anomaly pointed out by the noble Earl—namely, that in deciding such a question as was debated with so much animation in "another place" lately as to whether realty or personal property was unjustly treated in the present balance of taxation, all their Lordships put together had less direct influence than the humblest ratepayer in the country. It was certainly a very strange and curious anomaly; and the only thing which could be said in its favour was that it dated from the time of Richard II. Therefore the noble Lord would not expect him to defend it. As to the particular matter in the Bill to which the noble Earl had referred, he could only say that he did not recognize in the newspaper telegram—to which he presumed the noble Earl alluded—any resemblance to any facts with which he was acquainted. No doubt there had been discussions on that subject between the French and the British Governments. Her Majesty's Government had recognized that on one point the object of the

1601
French Government was the same as their own. Her Majesty's Government desired by that impost to touch rather the well-to-do than the poorer class. In fact, the tax, to use an ordinary phrase, was one upon luxury. The French Government pointed out that it would affect, and very severely, a class of wines which could hardly be called luxurious—namely, the lower class of sparkling wines. Mr. Goschen had undertaken to consider the question, and to see whether any provisions could be proposed which would have the effect of relieving that class of wines from a burden which it was desired to put upon them. Undoubtedly the question was a difficult one; and he did not like to use any language which might make it quite certain that the difficulty could be satisfactorily overcome, but the subject was engaging Mr. Goschen's best attention; and his right hon. Friend would make every endeavour to meet it. It had been thought better in the House of Commons that any arrangement which might be made should take the form of another Bill rather than that they should reserve a discretionary power of altering it by this Bill—a course which might be thought inconsistent with precedent. He hoped, therefore, that the matter might be arranged. He could not say that he considered the tax itself one to which any objection could reasonably be offered; but, of course, it was always a matter of regret to the Government if any tax affected the feelings and interests of any of their allies.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly: Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention, as far as it lies with them, to forward, and pass into law this Session, the important Bill for the amendment of the Lunacy Laws which, having already passed that House on three previous occasions, was sent down to "another place" on the 22nd of March this year?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he would also express an earnest hope that the passing of the Bill mentioned in the
  1602
  Question of the noble Earl might not be longer delayed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, it was difficult to answer the Question of the noble Earl, because he could not answer for the progress of Business in the other House, which must very much exercise the patience and discretion of his right hon. Friend the Leader of that House. He agreed that this was a topic quite removed from Party politics; and, although there was not perfect unanimity, yet he thought they might hope soon to settle it one way or the other.
  ROCHESTER BISHOPRIC BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better administering of the Diocese of Rochester—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of Rochester; read 1a. (No. 98.)
  LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee to which the Land Transfer Bill stands referred;" agreed to.—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.