Sitting of 7 April 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock,
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  "Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR J. SWINBURNErose to move—
  "That this House declines to consider any Bill to give further powers to the London and North Western Railway Company until the said Railway Company has made arrangements with Her Majesty's Government to open a tele-
  2
  graph office for the public at each and every one of its passenger stations."
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the Amendment of the hon. Member is in order. It proposes to introduce a question of general policy as an objection to a particular Private Bill when the Company promoting the Bill are simply asking for further powers The course which the hon. Baronet ought to take is to make a Motion for an alteration of the general policy applicable to all railways. There is nothing in this Bill which can fairly raise the question which he desires to introduce. As a matter of fact the Amendment is altogether irrelevant to any part of the Bill, and it would be impossible for this Railway Company to comply with the conditions that ought to be imposed. The initiation does not rest with them but with the Postmaster General, who can exercise compulsory powers in the direction indicated. Under the circumstances, I do not think the Amendment of the hon. Member is in order.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Shall I be in order in moving that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Then I beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months; and in drawing attention to the matter I wish to bring the subject of these telegraph offices before the House. When we ask for more telegraphic accommodation we are told by the Postmaster General, from the Treasury Bench, that the entire cost of new telegraph offices must be borne by those who require them. The only way, therefore, to meet the requirements of the public is to secure that all the railway stations shall be converted into telegraph offices.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the hon. Member is now founding an objection to the Bill upon the point on which I have already ruled him to be out of order. He must confine himself to any other objection he may have to urge against the Bill.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Then I will refer simply to Clause 34 on page 26, and Clause 37 on page 27. The present Bill proposes to put aside the general law of the country and asks for exceptional powers. By the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act if a Railway Company seeks to take a portion of land or of a building they are compelled to take the whole. The company asks to have this general law of the country set aside, and an exceptional law introduced in their favour. They seek in this Bill to be allowed to take a portion of the property interfered with, and not the whole, and I think that in such a case the public have a right to ask that the Telegraphs Act, which will be affected by this Bill, shall be revised. By former Acts of Parliament the company are allowed to send telegrams free over the Post Office wires, and in order to give the House some idea of the enormous extent to which this privilege is made available I may say that in 1870, the year after the Government acquired the telegraph wires, 5,286 messages were sent by the
  4
  London and North Western Company over the Government wires without payment, while in 1890 the number was increased 48 fold, having been 245,838. I think, at all events, the time has now arrived, when Railway Companies coming to this House for exceptional powers, should have revised the bargain made between them and the Postmaster General in 1868 for the benefit of the public. I submit that, when the Directors of a Railway Company decline o establish a telegraph office at a rail way station—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not now speaking to the Amendment, but is again dealing with the question which I have already ruled to be out of order.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to apologise to you, Sir, if I have said anything that is irregular. Under the circumstances, I will content myself with moving that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
  As there was no response the Amendment fell to the ground.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  NEW WRIT.
  For Oxfordshire (Mid or Woodstock Division), v. Francis William Maclean, esquire, Master in Lunacy.

  ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1891–2.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the net estimated Expenditure for the year 1891-2 on the Army and Navy; and the provision made for it."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the last inquiry regarding prisons in Scotland, none of the warders or officers employed

  5
  were called for examination J whether in England an inquiry into the grievances of prison officials has lately been ordered; and whether, in these circumstances, he will see his way to granting a thorough inquiry into the grievances of the Scottish prison officials, as also how far the present administration of the Prisons Board of Scotland can be amended in the direction of capacity, economy, and general good management?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: With regard to the first part of the question, I am informed by the Secretary for Scotland that he does not know to what inquiry the question of the hon. Member refers. With regard to the second question, I understand that some inquiry as to the conditions of English prison service is now proceeding; and with regard to the last part of the question, the Secretary for Scotland sees no reason at present for instituting such an inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  PUBLIC HOUSE APPEALS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether in appeals or suspensions of public house and Excise cases, originally prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal, the services of the Advocate Depute are at the command of the Fiscal; whether the Advocates are paid for appearing in such appeals; and, if so, from what fund; and whether there is any statutory authority for granting costs against appellants in these quasi-criminal proceedings?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Appearing in such proceedings does not form part of the duties of the Advocate's Depute, even when the Procurator Fiscal in the Sheriff Court is a party. But, as a rule, public house cases are instituted by the Procurator Fiscal of the Justices of the Peace, while Excise cases are prosecuted by an officer of Inland Revenue. The expenses of appeals and suspensions in public house cases come out of the county or borough funds; and in Excise prosecutions out of moneys provided by
  6
  Parliament for the charges of collection and management. The summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act, 1875 confers express power on the Court to award costs in cases falling under that statute; and, as regards suspensions, the Court has, I believe, always and without question exercised the right of dealing with expenses by virtue of its inherent powers in such proceedings.

  INFANTICIDE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have, in their investigation of baby farming and its attendant infanticide, obtained and could supply to the Home Office, if necessary, a practically complete list of the London and Provincial newspapers which have inserted the advertisements of those who trade in unwanted children; and whether he will issue from the Home Office a Circular Letter to all such newspapers, drawing the attention of the publishers and editors to the improper use of their columns by such advertisements, and to the frequent cases of cruelty and death arising there from, and urging them to exclude, so far as possible, advertisements of this nature?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: The Society in question have not communicated to me a list; but, as I have already stated in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question on March 23, I do not see my way to interfere with advertisements of the class described. I am doubtful whether such a Circular would have any influence on the newspapers, even if I had the authority to issue it, these advertisements not being, as I have already stated, necessarily illegal.

  REGISTKATION OF PARCELS.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now state what decision has been arrived at with reference to the registration of Inland parcels, and the granting of compensation or loss or

  7
  damage on registered packets; and, if so, the probable date when the same will come into operation?
  THE POSTMASTER, GENERAL (Mr. RAISES,: In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to state that I have obtained the assent of the Treasury to a scheme for the registration of Inland parcels and the granting of compensation for loss or damage in respect of registered packets. The scheme will probably come into operation on the 1st June.

  FRENCH CONVICTS AND THE AUSTRALASIAN COLONIES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State fop the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the apprehension which exists in Australia, especially in the Colony of Queensland, in consequence of the announcement that the Supreme Colonial Council at Paris has recommended to the French Government that "colonising and trading companies in the Pacific shall be allowed to employ convicts;" whether he is aware that convicts are continually escaping from the French penal settlement at New Caledonia and finding their way to the Queensland coast, to the great annoyance and alarm of the residents in the coastal towns, and that some of such convicts are still at large in Queensland; and whether Her Majesty's Government intends to take any, and, if so, what steps to prevent a further influx of French convicts into Her Majesty's colonial possessions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: The attention of the Secretary of State has not been called to any such announcement as is quoted by the hon. Member. His attention was, however, called last year to the allegation that no less than 60 convicts had escaped lately from New Caledonia, but, on inquiries being instituted through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, M. Ribot was able to give the assurance that though 25 convicts had recently suc-
  8
  ceeded in escaping from New Caledonia, all but five of these had been recaptured. It is hoped that, under existing arrangements, such escapes will be effectually checked; but Her Majesty's Government will at once call the attention of the French Government to any new facts that may be brought to their knowledge.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware-that, in filling up the Census Papers, difficulty has been very generally experienced as to the columns headed ' employer " and " employed "; whether he can state in general terms, in order to assist the enumerators in completing their work, what is intended to be included in the expressions trade or industry; and whether (to give instances) a stockbroker employing clerks, or a married woman carrying on a farm for her own separate profit or loss, should be marked as "employers," and a bank clerk should be marked as. "employed? "
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am not myself aware that difficulty has been generally experienced in filling up the columns headed "employer" and "employed" in the Census Paper. I may, however, say that the question of the hon. Member comes rather late, inasmuch as the Census Papers have now been filled up by the householder. It is for the householder, and not for the enumerator, to determine whether a particular person comes within the classes referred to. The particular instances, however, mentioned in the question do not appear to me to present any difficulty. A stockbroker employing clerks, and a married woman carrying on a farm on her own account, and employing labourers would clearly be employers, and a bank clerk should be regarded as employed.
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether it is the duty of the enumerators to go through the papers, and if they see anything on the face of a Return that is incorrect to return it to the householder

  9
  so that it may be amended? There is a general impression that that is part of the enumerator's duty.
  MR. RITCHIE: My own impression is that that is no part of the enumerator's duty to do so. At the time he collects the paper if he sees that there is anything wrong he may have the power to correct it at the time, but I do not think that, having taken it away, he has any power to return with it.

  GRIEVANCES OF CUSTOM HOUSE OFFICERS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet concluded his inquiry into the alleged grievances of Custom House Officers; and, if so, whether any Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The hon. Member will find that the Paper has been circulated this morning.

MOTION.

  FIRE INQUESTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Brookfield, Bill to provide for the holding of Fire Inquests, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Noble, Mr. Bruce, and Mr. Octavius V. Morgan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 264.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (2.30.) Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "man," in order to insert the word "person."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That the word 'man' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. ROBINSONrose to move the following new Clause:—
  "That the receipt of alms (other than parochial relief) shall not disqualify any
  10
  person from being placed upon the Parliamentary or municipal list of voters if in all other respects he is entitled."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which appears in the name of the hon. Member is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
  DR. CLARK: Before the Bill is disposed of I must be allowed to express my astonishment that hon. Friends of mine who, thinking the Bill will do much harm, have placed Amendments on the Paper, are not now in their places to move them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.(No. 220.)
  As amended, considered.
  New Clause—
  (Section three of " The Post Office Savings Banks Act, 1874" (which relates to the presentation of accounts to Parliament) shall have effect as if the last day of July were therein substituted for the last day of April,) —(Mr. Jackson,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  DR. CLARK: I should like to have an explanation of the reasons which induce the Government to propose this clause. The general impression is that, owing to some bungling upon the part of the Postmaster General and an omission on the part of the officials of the Savings Banks, these accounts are not presented sufficiently early; and, further, that the office is undermanned. I should like to know whether this is the reason why the Treasury are anxious to have the time extended?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I have already explained the reason, but probably the hon. Gentleman was not in his place. The object of altering the date is to give a little more time for the presentation of the accounts than that prescribed by the Act. It has

  11
  been found absolutely impossible to get the accounts sent in by the date named. There have also been difficulties in the past in meeting the increase of work owing to a want of accommodation. The proposed alteration will prevent future delay and inconvenience.
  MR. HOWELL: Surely the last day of June ought to give time enough without going to the last day of July. At present the House of Commons is seldom able to get anything like a Return in time to enable them to discuss it in the current year, and they have sometimes to discuss the Returns when they are two years old instead of being only one year old at the very latest. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to substitute the last day of June for the last day of July, and I beg to move an Amendment to that effect.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out the word " July," and insert the word " June."—{Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'July ' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I do not think the question, whether the date should be June or July, is one of extreme importance, but we have taken the earliest date at which we think the Returns can be supplied. I will undertake that every effort shall be made to present the accounts within the month of June. That is our intention, but we have thought it right to give a little latitude. The date has been fixed after consultation with the authorities of the Savings Banks Department.
  MR. CRAIG: I feel it my duty to support the Amendment, because 1 think it most desirable that June should be substituted for July.
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 116.)
  Clause added.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 2, line 10, after "unnecessary," to insert "having regard to the then present and
  12
  prospective reasonable requirements of the Bank. "The object of the Amendment is to define more clearly the word "unnecessary" when applied to expenditure. Under the measure as it stands the Committee of Inspection would be able to say what expenditure is or is not necessary. I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done a great deal to meet the wishes of the banks; and 1 only ask him to go one step further, and to prevent the possibility of a doubt arising as to the interpretation of this clause. Suppose, for instance, new bank buildings are required. Some members of the Committee might look upon the expenditure as unnecessary for the requirements of the moment, but another view would be that the business was capable of development, and that proper care and regard should be had to the necessities of the future. I may mention a case in which considerable loss was sustained owing to the narrower view being taken by the National Debt Commissioners in their interpretation of the word "necessary." It was proposed to erect a new building for the Glasgow Savings Bank, and provision was made for an anticipated large increase of business. The National Debt Commissioners, however, said the trustees were looking too far forward, and a smaller building was decided upon and erected. This was in 1868; but the anticipated increase of business has since taken place, and it is now found necessary to make further provision, with the result that much will have been expended to little or no purpose. The object of this Amendment is to indicate clearly to the Inspection Committee that the narrow view of looking only at the requirements of the moment is not a correct view in relation, to the encouragement of thrift among the people. The introduction of these words can do no harm, and will merely make the matter clearer.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 10, after the word "unnecessary," to insert the words "having regard to the then present and prospective reasonable requirements of the bank." — {Sir Albert Rollit.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I think the words proposed by my hon. Friend are really too wide, and altogether unnecessary. Undoubtedly the Inspection Committee would be taking a very narrow view of their duties if they neglected prospective requirements; but this is a matter that may be properly left to the discretion of the Committee, and I hope my hon. Friend will not divide the House. My hon. Friend seeks to open a door which might lead to some rather premature building operations. Very considerable concessions have been made, and I trust the clause will be allowed to remain unaltered.
  MR. TOMLINSON: There is, undoubtedly, a feeling amongst the trustees of savings banks that the terms of this clause are somewhat harsh, and I should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have seen his way to making some mitigation of this expression. At the same time, I wish to express my recognition of the manner in which he has met the representations made to him on behalf of those who are concerned with the Trustee Savings Banks; and though I could have wished that he could have seen his way to do something towards meeting this Amendment I should not myself be inclined to press it against his opposition.
  MR. HOWELL: I am not desirous to prolong the discussion upon this Bill; but I am anxious that no loophole shall be left for actuaries, secretaries and others connected with savings banks to incur unnecessary expenditure such as has been incurred in the past. At the same time the Committee of Inspection will, under the clause, have sufficient power to define what is necessary in connection with these banks, and I think they would take into account the circumstances of a bank such as that at Glasgow, which the hon. Gentleman opposite has mentioned. What we have to guard against is the misuse of the money of the depositors; but 1 am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind is not the interests of the depositors, but the view of the actuaries and managers. I want the Bill to be made
  14
  as stringent as possible, in order to prevent such a misuse of the funds of the depositors as has been brought to light by inquiries upstairs and outside this House. I hope the Government will stand firm and resist every kind of Amendment that may be brought forward to give additional powers to actuaries and other officers to expend money. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEY: I would press the Government to adhere to the wording of the Bill. The proposed Amendment is quite unnecessary, and would afford a loophole for improper expenditure, which it is most important to prevent.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.50.) Amendment proposed,
  In Clause i, page 3, line 27, to leave out all after "Bank," to end of clause, and insert "and in respect of money invested in the names of the National Debt Commissioners may be deducted by those Commissioners from the interest payable to the Trustees of the Bank on the money so invested, and in respect of money otherwise invested shall be paid by the Trustees of the Bank on the requisition of the said Commissioners."—{Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I quite agree that an Amendment in this clause is necessary, in order that the whole of the invested funds may bear a proportion of the expense; but I would suggest that the words should not be introduced where they are proposed to be inserted, but after the word "Commissioners," in line 28. If not, the effect will be greatly to increase the levy. It is properly proposed to extend the area of contribution, but it is a different matter to make a much larger sum available for expenditure.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  On Clause 5, which is as follows:—
  "If on any Report by the Committee of Inspection or any of its officers any question arises as to what constitute the necessary

  15
  expenses attending,' the management of a Trustee Savings Bank within the meaning of Section 2 of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863, the decision of the National Debt Commissioners on the question shall be final."
  SIR A. ROLLIT said: I have given notice of my intention to move the omission of Clause 5, but the banks think the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to move will fairly meet the merits of the case. It recognises the obligation to Trustees and others who voluntarily undertake duties which are to encourage thrift among the people; but, on the other hand, the interests of the depositors must not be disregarded. Nothing can be more destructive to thrift than for the poor to find that their savings have disappeared owing to fraud. It is, therefore, desirable that there should be a due audit and inspection of the accounts. At the same time, the banks strongly object to being under a control which may unduly limit their operations. It is now felt by the banks that the Chancellor's and my own Amendments on this section reconcile these points and are conceived in a proper spirit, and do justice to the banks on the one hand and the depositors on the other.
  (3.0.) Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 3, line 31, to leave out from "Committee" to "officers," in line 32, inclusive, and insert "Inspection Com mittee."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HOWELL: I am strongly averse to the introduction of anything which, although ostensibly for the protection of the depositors, will really give a latitude to the banks themselves. I feel bound to say that during the five years I have been a Member of the House the banks have never displayed any anxiety to protect the money of the depositors, but have had more regard for their own interests as officials of the banks.
  DR. CLARK: I hope that my hon. Friend will give way upon this point. The decision will not be left to the officers of the bank, but to the National Debt Commissioners.
  MR. BARTLEY: I would suggest that the words should run: "If on any Report by the Inspection Committee either of its own members or of its own officers."
  MR. GOSCHEN: This is not a question of a Report from the officers to the Committee of Inspection, but rather one of whether the officers may communicate with the National Debt Commissioners without such a Report.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I regard the Amendment as one of considerable importance. It enables the officers to go direct to the National Debt Commissioners, and it also enables the Commissioners to override the decision of the Inspection Committee.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I have already indicated that I have a strong objection to the words as they stand. The Committee of Inspection is to be representative and independent, and it will rest with them as a matter of duty to properly embody and formulate any Report presented to them by their officers, and to forward it to the National Debt Commissioners, if they consider the terms of any such Report justify them in adopting or forwarding it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, " That the words ' Inspection Committee' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I now beg to move the omission of Sub-section 2 of Clause 5, which is—
  "The National Debt Commissioners shall have power to determine what expenses may be deducted by the trustees or managers of a Trustee Savings Bank, in pursuance of Section 29 of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863."
  I am anxious to remove any cause of friction, and thus to secure the smooth working of the Bill. I should not have consented to this omission had it not been for the fact that at an earlier stage of the Bill the Government accepted words from the opposite side of the House which will safeguard the interests of the depositors in providing that no application to the National Debt Commissioners for any payment out of the surplus fund shall be entertained unless sanctioned by the Inspection Committee.

  17
  That will be sufficient to check any abuses, and I think that it substantially meets the necessities of the case. Some hon. Members may think that I have given way too much, but I was anxious to remove any possible objection, and to secure that the saving banks should be worked in the best manner possible.
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HOWELL: I am unwilling to take any action in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that he has secured the safety of these banks. Like him, I am anxious that all friction should be avoided, as far as is practicable, between the National Debt Commissioners, the Inspection Committee, and the depositors. My only anxiety has been to ensure the safety of the banks; and it is because I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have at heart the securing of the depositors in that perfect safety which the Act of Parliament was intended to give them, that I rely upon the assurance he has given in regard to this clause. At the same time, I regret to see the sub-section omitted from the Bill, because I think that it constituted another element of safety in regard to the conduct of these banks. I shall not oppose the omission of the subsection.
  DR. CLARK: In giving up this clause the Government have struck out the most valuable part of the Bill, because it was one which enabled some restriction to be maintained on the expenses which are charged. The Trustees will now be able to draw upon a special fund, and in that way unnecessary expenditure may be incurred. I do not see why the National Debt Commissioners, who are responsible for all losses, should not have power to determine what expenses may or may not be incurred by banks in carrying on their business. It is not really banking business at all. They merely take in the savings of the people, and do not lend them out again as other banks do. The money is invested under special restrictions. I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I cannot
  18
  help expressing my regret that the Government has withdrawn the subsection.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I differ from the hon. Member, and entirely agree in the omission of the sub-section, which I look upon as dangerous, and opposed to the principle of the Bill. The object is not to give to the National Debt Commissioners or the Government full control over the banks, but to interpose between the Government and the banks an independent Committee who should practically have control. As the matter now stands the Inspection Committee will be an independent authority in coming to a conclusion that there has been unnecessary expenditure, and there is to be no independent authority or power on the part of the National Debt Commissioners to direct the banks to enter into any expenditure which may be deemed undesirable.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I have an addition to propose to Clause 5—
  "That where a Trustee Savings Bank has, to the satisfaction of the National Debt Commissioners, carried out the law, the trustees and managers of such bank shall be absolved from all responsibility in reference to part transactions of the bank."
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the words suggested by the hon. Member can properly be regarded as an amendment of the clause. They are, rather, a new clause altogether.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The object of my Amendment is to give effect to the audit, and I submit, as a point of order, that that is relevant as an amendment of the clause.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that it is pertinent to the clause.
  Clause 7 (Office of Trustee to be vacated for non-attendance at meetings.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 17, after " vacant," to leav out from " and," to " reappointed," in line 19, inclusive, and insert, " And he shall not, unless he has in the meantime explained to the satisfaction of the Inspection Committee his absence or the non-performance of his duties be eligible for re-appointment until the expiration of one

  19
  year from the end of that period.'"—[Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HOWELL: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not made a further concession. What does the Amendment mean? Does it mean that a man in Cardiff, if he happens to live near the bank, may sign a cheque or two during the 12 months, and that that fact will constitute him a manager and trustee, capable of looking after the bank? Surely the managers and trustees ought to be required to put in an appearance now and then in order to see that the business of the bank is properly conducted. I fancy that this is simply a method whereby a man's name may be kept on the list of trustees and managers. He may reside at a distance, and yet be able to do some little act as an apology for the due performance of his duties. These banks were established to receive the savings of the poorer classes; and managers and trustees have been placed over the officials of the banks for a specific purpose. My view is that they fail to perform their duty if they do not attend as often as is practicable in order to see that the law is fully carried out. What can be the object of keeping the name of a man upon the list of managers and trustees unless he is prepared to do his duty? In all other instances if a trustee neglects his duty he has to pay the penalty. When the law of 1863 was discussed the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, owing to pressure from without, established the Post Office Savings Banks as a protest against the action of the trustees and managers of the ordinary savings banks. From all time the trustees have endeavoured to shirk their duty, and here we have another stepping-stone that will enable them to continue in the same course. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand firm by the Bill as it is, and if a trustee cannot attend to his duties, let his name be dropped out of the list.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We fully recognise the principle that if one of these trustees has not attended to his duties he is not to remain
  20
  a trustee. The whole modification now proposed lies in the words "unless he has, in the meantime, explained to the satisfaction of the Inspection Committee his absence or the nonperformance of his duties." All that is done is to give to the Inspection Committee power to ascertain whether a satisfactory explanation can be given. I have introduced the general amendment into the existing law in deference to the public wish, that if a man does not attend in the course of a year he shall be ineligible for re-appointment; but there may be circumstances, such as illness or otherwise, which may have prevented him from attending, and, in that case, he ought to be re-eligible.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I think the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) dwelt somewhat too strongly upon the failure of trustees and managers to perform their duty. There have been such cases in the past, and the whole object of the Bill is to limit them in future. Trustees and managers have on the other hand done much for the people, and in the case of numberless banks, they have devoted an infinite amount of time to the discharge of their offices. Under their care and supervision there has grown up a means of saving which but for them would have been altogether impossible. There are other duties to perform of a routine character besides attending meetings, and in connection with them they sacrifice a large amount of time. On the other hand, there are only one or two meetings in the course of the year, and it may happen that one of these gentlemen who may have done good service in other respects, may, from illness, have been unable to attend such meetings. All that is asked is that persons who have done so much for these banks shall be eligible for re-appointment if they can give a satisfactory explanation of the reason of the nonperformance of certain their duties.
  DR. CLARK: This is another attempt to whittle down the value of this Bill. As the clause originally stood, if a trustee did not attend a single meeting he would be disqualified. That proposal was modified by allowing him to remain if he had signed cheques or performed

  21
  any duty during the 12 months. It is now proposed further to modify the clause by providing that a trustee who has not attended a meeting or signed a cheque shall remain, if the Inspection Committee are satisfied that his reasons for the nonperformance of his duties are satisfactory.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not to rest with the trustee, but with the Inspection Committee.
  DR. CLARK: I think that if a trustee does not attend for a year, and performs no functions, he ought to retire. He can rejoin the bank afterwards. I am afraid that the Amendments the Government are inserting in the Bill will make the measure useless, as far as its original intention is concerned.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I cannot agree that the Amendment will render the Bill useless. It is one of a most limited character, and I cannot see that any possible harm can arise from adopting it. I can imagine cases in which a trustee is unable to attend to his duties for a year, but in regard to which he may satisfactorily explain the reason of his absence.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think it is highly important that we should give the Inspection Committee a discretionary power.
  MR. LENG: I am of opinion that we ought to keep in view the desirability of not deterring gentlemen of influence and business habits from becoming trustees of savings banks. It does not seem to me that any real objection has been brought to bear against the Amendment. It simply gives an opportunity to a trustee to explain, to the satisfaction of the Inspection Committee, the cause of his absence and of the non-performance of his duties. It is quite conceivable that a trustee may be prevented by accidental causes from being able to perform his duty, and he ought not to be shut out from all opportunity of giving a satisfactory explanation. I am afraid that we are indulging in a little hypercriticism; and when the responsible Government are endeavouring to avoid possible friction I think they ought to receive more support.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am not quite clear that the words proposed to be inserted will carry out exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means. My doubt turns on the words "in the meantime." If in the course of 12 months the trustee has not attended or performed his duties the office is to become vacant, unless "in the meantime" he has given a satisfactory explanation to the Inspection Committee. Now, I submit that the words "in the meantime" would cause that office to terminate until a re-appointment took place. I presume it is intended that if the trustee makes a satisfactory explanation during the 12 months he is to be eligible, otherwise, according to the natural interpretation of the words "in the meantime," there must be a vacancy in the office, and he must at some subsequent time be reappointed. Moreover, the vacancy must be notified to the National Debt Commissioners. I would suggest that the words should be "unless he has during that period."
  MR. GOSCHENwas understood to say he would look into the matter, and have any defect rectified in another place.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I beg. to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 10, page 5, line 2, at end, to insert "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the continuance of special investments in behalf of any person who is already a depositor under section sixteen of the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1863."—(Mr. C. S. Parker.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I accept the Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will this Amendment permit the continuance of special investments? Some of the special investments take the form of mortgages, and there are persons who think it is desirable they should cease.

  23
  Are we to understand these mortgages I are to be allowed to continue?
  MR. C. S. PARKER: Perhaps as the Mover of the Amendment I may be allowed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a proviso to the subsection only, and, therefore, it leaves operative all the other sub-sections, and amongst them that which prevents the continuance of investments in land. There are a large number of my constituents who have at present special investments not amounting to .£50, and all I ask is that we should not disturb that existing state of things. It is a small affair, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting an Amendment which will beneficially affect a large number of the working classes in the City and County of Perth.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HOWELL: I hoped I might induce the House to make some little advance in regard to the amount which might be deposited in these banks. While desiring to increase the stability of these banks I have always recognised the fact that there is a growing disposition on the part of many depositors to increase their little savings, and I believe the limit as fixed many years ago is now too small. The Government of 1882, I think, actually carried a Bill in this House for the purpose of increasing the limit, and increasing it beyond what I propose. Surely we ought not to go back on what was proposed at that time. We ought to afford greater instead of fewer facilities for thrift among the working classes. This does not merely affect Trustee Savings Banks, but also the Post Office. In my opinion, Trustee Savings Banks will be immensely benefited. Supposing they always do their duty, if you give them a larger margin in order to meet the expenses, many of them that cannot now be said to be in a state of absolute solvency would be able to put themselves in a position of solvency. It cannot be said the amount of interest is any obstacle to this increase, because the interest is now reduced to a minimum. The great objection to any increase comes from the poor bankers. Surely the Government need have no fear of danger if the working classes had an opportunity of
  24
  investing £60 instead of £30 in any one year. There is a very peculiar state of things at present. If a man owing to any cause draws out £60 at the earlier part of a year he is unable to re-invest a similar amount during the year: no trustee or Post Office Savings Bank could receive more than £30, and that is supposed to be an encouragement of thrift. The poor bankers of the country will not undertake to receive the small sums deposited in Post Office and Trustees Savings Banks, or, if they do, instead of giving interest they charge something for keeping the account. I find some gentlemen do not object to the increase in the total deposit from £150 to £200 if the extra £50 is interest. Why should the increase not be capital if a man has it? I am sorry to have to refer to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be terribly afraid that the Government of the country would be placed in some difficulty if it had an enormous number of millions sterling belonging to the working classes placed at its disposal. I fail to understand the danger of such a state of things, indeed I think it is a state of things much to be hoped for. If the House will not accept the whole of my proposal, I hope they will permit a man to deposit in any one year 60 instead of £30. At any rate, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown some sympathy in this matter, whether provision cannot be made whereby a man who draws out, owing to some accidental circumstances over which he has no control, £50 or £60 in a year, may, if he is able to do so, re-invest in the course of the same year a like amount. I do not see how this would be a disadvantage to the banking interest of the country. I think we should really be increasing the clients of the bank. Any man who had £300 or £400 would, no doubt, feel himself man enough to apply to a commercial bank where he could possibly be better served for general commercial purposes than he could by the savings bank or the Post Office. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 7, to leave out the words "two hundred pounds," and insert the words

  25
  " in any one year the sum of sixty pounds, and not exceeding in the whole, inclusive of interest, the sum of four hundred pounds." — (Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' two hundred pounds' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As to the total deposit I do not think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is of very great importance, considering that now after the £200 has been deposited it is open to invest £300 through the Post Office or savings banks in Consols or other security. But the proposal as to the amount which may be deposited in any one year appears to me to be very important. Many of those, including the late Mr. Fawcett, who were connected in past times with the Post Office, have come to the conclusion that the annual minimum ought to be increased. I can see no possible objection to the proposal, and I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to yield on that point. I believe that officers of the savings bank not unfrequently point out to depositors a way in which they may evade this special provision. They tell intending depositors they have already deposited the amount allowed, but they may deposit another £30 in the name of the wife or of one of the children. I know cases in which persons have withdrawn .£40 or £50, and desired to re-invest it in the same year, but have not been allowed to do so. The point raised by my hon. Friend does not affect the private banks or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give way.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will favourably consider the Amendment. The practice does exist of investing money in the names of various members of a family. I do not regard that as an evasion. On the contrary, I know it is frequently a mode of inducing the younger members of a family to commence being depositors. There was a time when probably the limitation was justifiable, because when savings banks were instituted the State gave bonuses for thrift. But for some time that rule
  26
  has ceased to exist with the successive reductions of interest, and the State is now practically the "gainer. In view of the immensely increased earnings of the people, is it not right that the facilities for saving should be increased? Our duty is to cultivate that habit of saving which these banks are intended to foster; and, according to the reports of the banks, the largest savings are those which have been of long and gradual accumulation. I hope that facilities will be afforded for the increase of the amounts of deposits. Mr. Lyulph Stanley, a severe critic, in the evidence he gave before the Committee, said, "I shall be glad to see the limit raised to £300." And he said also, in answer to another question, " I should not call £300 a very high maximum." The maximum proposed by the hon. Member opposite is something more than that; but it is, I think, a very moderate limit, having regard to the change of conditions that has taken place. One argument with regard to the bankers has, I think, been answered by themselves, because I remember the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) saying that the savings banks were of advantage to them. The savings banks in Rochdale were the pioneers of the cooperative movement in that town, and there is no other town which presents the co-operative movement in a more successful aspect. I believe that in the end the bankers will gain as much as the community by the raising of the maximum.
  MR. GOSCHEN": The hon. Gentleman has divided his Amendment into two parts, one dealing with the increase of the permanent maximum, and the other with the increase of the maximum of the year. Let me first remark that if the position of the working man in regard to the amount that may be saved is different from what it was 30 or 40 years ago, the facilities for investment are far greater. I can understand the evidence given by officials of the Post Office and others in this matter. The more business the Post Office transacts, the better satisfied the officials are; they are very ambitious to extend its transactions. As Chan-

  27
  cellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to say that, although it is an advantage that there should be these deposits in the banks of the State, and that large numbers of the working classes should be interested in the stability of the State, there are limits to the amount which ought to be held by the Government. The Post Office holds now £110,000,000 of deposits, and an advance from £200 to £400 would be very large, and might attract to the Post Office people who cannot be considered to belong to the working classes at all. I am bound to say that the terms given by the State of 2 1/2 per cent. are higher than it would be right to grant to persons other than those in whose thrift the State is specially interested. To extend the limit would be very costly. We have given very handsome terms, but these terms ought to be strictly limited to the classes for whom they are intended. With regard to the annual deposit, I shall be prepared to consider whether a sub-section cannot be introduced in another place to provide that in hard cases of sudden withdrawal the depositor shall ha allowed, as has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), to replace the amount withdrawn. Bat a current account cannot be kept on the terms we are now granting in regard to these deposits. As the House has been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman, the deposits can be invested in Stock at 2£ per cent. On the whole, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am adverse to any measure which would largely increase the already gigantic amount standing to the credit of depositors in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, and on which the Government is bound to pay large interest.
  MR. HOWELL: I will adopt the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "two hundred pounds," and insert the words "in any one year the sum of sixty pounds."—(Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'two hundred pounds' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether you
  28
  can put the Amendment in two parts so as to raise the two questions? If you would first put the part up to the words " in any one year a sum of £60," and that is agreed to, the House can afterwards divide on the second part.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Bethnal Green withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. HOWELL: If it will facilitate matters I shall be glad to do so. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go a little further, though I admit he has endeavoured to meet me to some extent. But I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 7, after the words "two hundred pounds," to insert the words " but may receive in any one year the sum of sixty pounds."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR.WINTERBOTHAM: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried the House with him in his argument on the aggregate amount to be allowed to stand in any one name, but I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman any argument to sustain the objection to allowing a depositor to attain more quickly this maximum amount. When a man is in good work and receiving good wages it is quite possible he may be able to attain this desirable limit of £200 in a shorter time than the yearly amount provided now will allow, and I cannot see how the State would be damnified by his so doing. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allowing the aggregate amount to be reached at the rate of £60 a year. There are many mechanics who when in full work earn from £2 to £5 a week, and are quite able to put by 25s. a week, and in three years, or a little more, could accumulate £200. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise this.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am sorry I do not find myself able to meet hon. Gentlemen on this point. In a case where a man is so fortunate as to save

  29
  more than this amount, it is open to him to invest his money in Consols where there is not the same limitation. My objection is that by carrying the limit beyond that laid down you increase the operation of the savings banks for a large class for whom these facilities were never intended. These banks are intended for the encouragement of thrift among the working classes. If a man has more savings to invest than £30 in one year, then it is open to him to invest in Consols where he gets larger interest with quite as good security as the savings banks.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite meets the case of the working man who uses the machinery of the savings banks for investment. There are classes of working men whose gains in the year vary almost as much as the profits of traders. Fishermen, for instance, may have much larger gains at one time than at another, and to these men, who are accustomed to use the savings banks for their savings, it will be a difficult operation to go through the form of investment in the funds.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But the machinery is provided by the Post Office Savings Banks, and by this a man can invest the smallest amount, and the whole thing is arranged for him at a trivial charge.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment follows after the "two hundred pounds?"
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, Sir; it is better to retain those words, and then I propose the insertion of the words.
  MR. MOWBRAY: I think, Sir, the difficulty found in putting the Amendment shows the inconvenience of raising the question in this manner. As has been pointed out, this clause refers to the limit of the aggregate amount which I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford does not desire to increase beyond the amount provided for in the Bill. But I venture to think that if we are now going to alter the sub-section of a clause which deals with the aggregate amount in order to deal
  30
  with another point, that is the amount of annual investment, we shall get into great confusion. It will be necessary, if we insert the Amendment in this shape, to make an alteration in the Preamble to the clause, and to make an alteration in the Schedule with regard to the repeal of the existing section of the Act of 1863. I think the difficulty we are under shows that it will be wiser to accept the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this question should be left over in order that it may be raised in a manner in which it can be satisfactorily dealt with in another place, and with the intention of meeting as far as possible the object the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) has in view.
  MR. BARTLEY: No one can accuse me of not wishing to promote thrift among the working classes if I oppose the Amendment; but candidly I must say I think it would be unwise to allow Post Office and trustee banks to increase this amount. People who desire to invest larger amounts may, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, avail themselves of Consols or other stock where they have good security. A man and his wife are allowed to invest £400, and where there are five members of his family, the family can invest £1,000, which is independent of all fluctuations incident to the financial position of the country. I think the State has done all that can reasonably be expected, and, beyond this, I think investments should be subject to the ordinary fluctuations of commerce. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to this change being made. To do so will alter the object of the Bill materially. It forms no part of the Bill, the object of which is to make savings banks safer and prevent some of the difficulties they have fallen into, and we shall be travelling outside the lines of the Bill if we insert this Amendment.
  (4.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I hope the House will now agree to take the Third Reading.

  31
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I offer no objection to that; but I think we may now ask the names of the Commissioners who are to be appointed under the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have already stated the names.
  MR. HOWELL: I quite agree to the Third Reading being taken now, and I am very glad the Bill has reached that stage. But may I remind the right hon. Gentleman there is still his promise that in another place an attempt shall be made to insert a provision whereby a depositor who makes a withdrawal may make up the amount of such withdrawal in the course of the year. I hope this will be provided for.
  MR. LENG: I desire to emphasise this appeal of my hon. Friend. I know that among the depositors in the bank with which I am connected there is a very strong desire on this point that the limit of £30 should be plus the replacing of the amount that may be drawn out to meet the needs that may arise in families resulting from death, or marriage, or the starting of a son or daughter in life. It is a great convenience to draw out £10 or £20 to meet such emergencies; bu a depositor might well be allowed to replace such amount as the year goes on.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will do my best, and I have no doubt I shall be able to devise some sub-section to meet the point.
  DR. CLARK: I hope the other House will adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman. I raise no objection to the Third Reading, though I think we do not want these trustee savings banks at all. We shall have the two systems of trustee banks and Post Office banks in competition. I know we are trying to get rid of the notion that the State is security for depositors; but the popular belief is, and will be, that the Government are security. Now that we have the Post Office Savings Bank system, I do not think that these trustee banks are required. I make an exception in such cases as the Glasgow Bank, which performs very useful func-
  32
  tions; but, economically, there is an inconvenience, and even danger in all the small savings being drawn away to the central towns.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I cordially support the Third Reading, and take the opportunity of thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courteous consideration he has given to the suggestions which have been made on either side of the House. I join in the hope that the point in reference to withdrawals will be satisfactorily dealt with in another place, and I hope the question I raised on the contribution clause will not be overlooked, for the maximum of expenditure is greatly raised by the clause as amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I heartily support the Third Reading. It is highly probable that the tendency of the Bill will be to displace the smaller savings banks in country districts, while it will not interfere with the larger banks which do useful work in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and elsewhere. The progress in the towns I have mentioned shows there is room for these larger banks as well as for the Post Office banks. Since 1861 the increase in the annual deposits in the trustee banks in Glasgow and Edinburgh has been from £1,000,000 to £3,600,000, and during the same time the increase in the Post Office banks has been £190,000. These figures show the utility of the banks I have mentioned, and the effect of the Bill will not, I trust, be to interfere with the progress of these large banks, though probably it will be to reduce the number of smaller banks, not carried on to such advantage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.-(No. 231.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The House will observe that there are two Bills dealing with this subject, the

  33
  first of which is an Amendment Bill, the second a Consolidation Bill. I hope that, as was done in the case of the Housing of the Working Classes Bills of last Session, these two Bills will be referred to a Standing Committee, and discussed in a businesslike manner. The state of the law in regard to public health in London is very unsatisfactory. Whereas the law as to public health in the provinces has been amended and consolidated by the Act of 1875, the public health law of the Metropolis is scattered over a number of Acts, beginning with Michael Angelo Taylor's Act of 1817, and is contained in 29 separate statutes. There can be no doubt that such a condition of things is greatly to the disadvantage of the public health of London. It enhances the difficulties of the Local Authorities and prevents them from carrying out the provisions of the law as they would desire to carry them out. It is probable that the Local Authorities are often blamed for not discharging their functions in matters affecting the public health as efficiently as they ought to do, when as a matter of fact it is the Statute Book which is to blame. The Consolidation Bill before the House consolidates the whole of the Public Health Acts, but the Bill is not absolutely a Consolidation Bill, because it does this— wherever the clauses in the existing law are of a similar character to the clauses of the Public Health Act of 1875 the provisions of that Act have been adopted in the Consolidation Bill. Certain Amendments, then, are proposed to be made in the existing law, but I do not think they are Amendments which are likely to create much criticism, or which cannot easily be disposed of in Committee. As there has been some misapprehension with regard to Clause 61, I would point out that under the present law the Sanitary Authorities may contract with the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the provision of hospital accommodation. In that case the Sanitary Authorities are liable for expenses to the Asylums Board, but the patients, or those responsible for their maintenance, can toe made to pay in cases in which the Sanitary Authority thinks them able to do so. The only alteration which the Bill before the House makes is to extend this
  34
  provision to hospitals which are built by the Sanitary Authorities, so that in that case also the cost of the patients may be recovered. We propose, however, not only to consolidate and simplify the law, but also to very largely amend the law with regard to public health in London. Last year I sent round to the various authorities in London the proposals with regard to consolidation, and those authorities went carefully into the matter, and made suggestions which the Government have found themselves largely in a position to adopt; and I have to express my obligation to those bodies, as well as to the London County Council, for the assistance they have rendered to the Department over which I have the honour to preside. The Amendment Bill, in the first place, greatly strengthens the law both as to the prevention and definition of nuisances. The Bill provides for the immediate abatement of a nuisance, not only where it is actually proved to be injurious or prejudicial to health, but also where it is dangerous to health. At present only the persons affected by the nuisance or the Local Authority can move in the matter, but the Bill provides that any person may give information of a nuisance with a view to its removal, and under these provisions any person found guilty of allowing a nuisance to exist will be held responsible for doing any work necessary to abate it. The House will see that to require the work necessary to be done to be specified, as at present is the case, may easily give rise to delay and appeals; but where a nuisance ought to he summarily and quickly abated it is very desirable that that should not be so. If the charge is considered by the Magistrate to be proved, the author of the nuisance will be held responsible for doing whatever may be required to abate it. The Bill also imposes—and this is new— on the London County Council the duty of making bye-laws for the cleansing of streets and the prevention of nuisances. It is thought that these matters will be much better dealt with by a body representative of the whole of London, and it is quite clear that the County Council is the proper body. This will throw upon the County Council the duty of making bye-laws to put a stop to a particular nuisance as to which consider-

  35
  able complaint has justly arisen, namely, the throwing of salt on the streets of the Metropolis in snowy and frosty weather. Great evil arises from that cause during the winter, and we think it very desirable to deal with the matter. The Bill next deals with offensive trades, and several Amendments of an unimportant character are introduced, one of them being to do away with the distinction at present existing between slaughter-houses and knackers' yards. All these places will be put under the same Local Authority. There is one very important Amendment in the law which we make with regard to the proceedings of Sanitary Authorities. The House must be aware that many complaints are made by persons residing in the Metropolis of nuisances alleged to be caused by the Sanitary Authority themselves. These complaints are of a two-fold character. One is that the Sanitary Authorities carry on offensive operations at wharves and other places where refuse is deposited, and the Bill includes these operations in the category of offensive trades, so that the Local Authorities will be compelled to take every practicable means to reduce any offensive effluvia or nuisance which might be created by the removal of refuse. The Local Authorities will be liable to prosecution if they fail to avail themselves of such means. The second is generally known as the destructor nuisance. The Bill provides that where a Sanitary Authority causes a nuisance, or does anything injurious or dangerous to health, it may be prosecuted, and all the provisions as to nuisances shall apply. Destructors to destroy refuse brought from the area of one authority are sometimes situate within the area of another authority, and we propose to prevent nuisances arising from this operation by the means I have stated. With regard to the smoke nuisance, at present both the Sanitary Authorities and the Commissioner of Police are charged with the enforcement of the law. It is thought that this dual authority is not a good thing, and therefore it is proposed to intrust the carrying out of the law to the Local Authorities; and in the case of nuisances arising on the River Thames to the Port Sanitary Authority. As
  36
  to scavenging and cleansing the streets, particularly after a fall of snow, the law at present is that the occupier, or, in the case of empty houses, the owner is liable to keep the footway and the water course in front of his house properly swept and cleansed. It has been maintained that this is a duty which should be undertaken by the Local Authorities; but I am not disposed to agree altogether with that view, and I do not propose to relieve individuals of the duty which thus falls on them. In my opinion, if such a heavy additional duty were cast upon the Local Authorities, it would be almost impossible for them to carry out the law, and render the last state of things worse than the first. If the occupier does not perform his duty after a short interval, it will be performed for him by the Sanitary Authority, and the cost may be put upon him; besides which, he will be also liable to a fine for the non-performance of his duty. Another difficulty which will be got rid of by casting upon the Sanitary Authority the duty of keeping the streets. clean is that in connection with empty houses, and squares, and gardens. Nobody can fail to be struck, after a fall of snow, with the numerous cases in which a large amount of pavement is left untouched for days and days; and in nine cases out of ten this is in connection with unoccupied houses or gardens and squares. Clearly it should be the duty of the Sanitary Authority to see that this state of things should not exist; and they are now given the power, and the duty is imposed upon them of either enforcing the performance of the work by the person who is liable, or of doing the work for him and making him pay wherever it is possible-to do so. With regard to streets, the Bill requires the Sanitary Authority to perform its duty of sweeping and cleansing, and the Sanitary Authority is made liable to a fine if it does not perform its duty as far as is reasonably practicable. If an occupier is bound under a penalty to perform the duty which is cast upon him, for my own part I think that there is a corresponding duty towards the occupier on the part of the Sanitary Authority, and that the same method of enforcing the duty should be applicable with regard to the Local

  37
  Authority as against the individual; and, therefore, we provide that a penalty-shall be imposed in case of neglect.
  MR. KELLY: To whom will the penalties go, and who is to receive them?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will come to that point later on. The next point in the Bill is as to the removal of house refuse-The duty of the Local Authority in this matter is at present an implied one; but the Bill will make it perfectly clear, any default subjecting the authorities to prosecution and fine. The Bill does not set out a period within which the removal must be made; but the Sanitary Authority will be bound to fix some proper and reasonable period for clearing away dust and house refuse, and they will be liable to a fine if, proper notice being given, they do not at once comply with the request of the occupier. The Bill also provides for the proper regulation and examination of sanitary conveniences, and for seeing that they are properly constructed and in proper order. The next portion of the Bill deals with the question of unsound articles of food. We propose to extend the existing law, which applies only to particular articles and to those who expose such articles for sale. This Bill applies to every article used for food, and gives power both of search and destruction. We propose to apply the existing enactment to every article of food, and we punish, the sale as well as the exposure. By the law. as it stands at present it is only the individual who exposes the article for sale who is punishable by law. We now propose to make the person from whom the food is bought, as well as the person selling it, punishable for the offence. Then comes the question of proper water supply to houses. In my opinion a house without a water supply is a nuisance, and we now declare that the being without a proper supply is a nuisance that renders a house unfit for habitation, and the Bill absolutely prohibits a new house from being occupied until the Sanitary Authority shall have certified that there is a proper supply. We further strengthen the law with regard to polluted sources of water. We also amend the law with regard to infectious
  38
  diseases. The provision of the present law with regard to disinfection is entirely permissive. We propose to make it the duty of the Sanitary Authority to provide proper premises for disinfecting bedding, clothing, &c, and also vehicles for carrying these articles to and fro. I am sure the House will see that unless some proper provision be made in this direction, it will be impossible to carry out the Act which the House has recently passed with regard to infectious diseases. We think it right that it should be in the option of the Local Authority whether they shall make a charge for the performance of this duty or not. Obviously there are many cases where it is right that there should be no impediment to the carrying out of such an important matter as disinfection. We also provide that the Sanitary Authority may relieve poor persons by disinfecting, not only bedding and clothing, but also their houses free of charge. Representations have been made to the Local Government Board, especially from Maidstone, to persons picking fruit who have been found manifestly suffering from infectious disease. It is eminently desirable- to prevent a person suffering from an infectious disease from handling articles of food at all, and, therefore, the Bill imposes a penalty upon anyone milking, picking fruit, or otherwise engaging in an occupation connected with food who- knows himself to be suffering from an infectious disease. We propose that the. Sanitary Authority may make a reasonable allowance to a poor person if he be taken away from his occupation on this account. In order to avoid what may he very considerable hardship, the Sanitary Authority may, at their discretion, give hat they think right and just without the person having to apply to the Guardians. We also propose, with regard to the notification of infectious diseases, that the Return of cases of those diseases required to be sent by the Metropolitan Asylums managers to the County Council shall be sent by them to every. Sanitary Authority in London, and to the London School Board and to the managers of every public elementary school in London. With regard to mortuaries we provide that Sanitary Authorities must erect them, either separately

  39
  or in combination. At present the law-is only permissive, and considerable scandals have arisen in this respect. Every Sanitary Authority must also, if required by the County Council, provide a building for post-mortem examinations. One very important matter with which we deal in this Bill is the question of underground or cellar rooms. No one who has any knowledge of the conditions under which poor persons exist in these rooms can fail to be aware of the enormous disadvantage to the public health which arises from the condition of many of the rooms at present occupied. The law on the subject has been modified from year to year, and has been considerably strengthened with the view of doing away with the evils acknowledged to exist in this respect. But the law in London still remains far behind that which prevails in the provinces. By the Public Health Act of 1875 very stringent regulations were made to secure ventilation, &c. In London, however, so far as -underground dwellings are concerned, the provisions with regard to the preservation of health are comparatively few and weak. By this Bill ample provision is made with regard to height, drainage, and ventilation. Our proposal is to apply to underground rooms the principal provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875, and also some additional provisions. Then there arises the question as to whether these provisions should apply only to new buildings. The Local Government Board have received many representations, both from the London County Council and from London Vestries, requesting that any provisions which are made shall be applicable to buildings both old and new. Looking at the legislation which has been passed in this matter, we do not think we should be justified in perpetuating the exemptions which exist at the present time. Therefore the proposals in the Bill will apply to all underground rooms, with the reservation that the London County Council may, by general regulations or on the applications of the owner of particular rooms, 'dispense with or modify the provisions as far as they involve structural alterations, having due regard to the necessities of the case. The Bill also amends the law where it is at present undoubtedly faulty. It pro-
  40
  vides that where two or more underground rooms are occupied together they shall be considered by the law to be separately occupied. It has been shown that the existing law has been interpreted to be that, in order to bring rooms within the law, each room must be separately occupied, and thus the occupier of two rooms escapes. The provisions with regard to underground rooms will not apply to cases where an underground room merely forms part of the premises in occupation. It is also necessary to strengthen the means by which the law affecting the public health is enforced. One of the proposals of the Bill refers to the Inspectors of Nuisances and Medical Officers of Health. Means are provided by which an adequate number of proper persons shall be appointed as Inspectors of Nuisances, henceforth to be called Sanitary Inspectors. Complaint has been made that the number of these Inspectors in some parts of London is not nearly adequate for the area over which they exercise their jurisdiction, and it is quite impossible for the Sanitary Authorities to carry out the law unless they have a sufficient staff of Inspectors. The Bill provides that the Local Government Board, if satisfied, on the representation of the London County Council, that a Sanitary Authority has not appointed a sufficient number of Inspectors, may order that Sanitary Authority to appoint as many moreas maybe deemed necessary. It is also provided by the Bill, with a view to secure fit and proper persons as Inspectors, that their appointment shall be subject to the regulations of the Local Government Board; and with regard to the Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors, it is provided that they shall be removable by the Sanitary Authority only with the consent of the Local Government Board. This provision has been asked for from many quarters, and there is much force in the argument that, unless these officers are to a certain extent independent of the Local Authority, they cannot perform their duties with absolute freedom. There is a precedent for this in the Scotch Local Government Act. It is said, " Will your law be carried out? " I believe that the action or inaction of the Sanitary Authorities has been very

  41
  largely caused by the complexity of the law with regard to the public health; and the mere simplification of the law will enable the authorities to perform their duties in a much more efficient manner. I am greatly encouraged in this belief by the action of the Local Authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. It is a matter for congratulation that in London the Local Authorities have almost with one accord endeavoured to make the best possible use of the powers given them by Parliament last year. Undoubtedly, however, it is the duty of the Local Government Board to take some guarantee for the due performance of the duties imposed on the Local Authorities. I have already said that the Sanitary Authorities, just as the individual, are liable to be fined for the non-performance of their duties. The Bill provides that the London County Council may prosecute the Local Authority, and also that the Local Government Board may, on complaint by the London County Council that the Local Authority is neglecting its duty, and after satisfying itself that the complaint is just, make an order fixing a limit of time within which the duty must be performed; and, if it be not then performed, may transfer the duty from the Local Authority to the County Council. It has been represented that some Local Authorities regard this provision as an attack upon themselves. Such a view arises from a misapprehension of the existing law. With regard to the prosecution of offenders, the existing law is that any aggrieved person may prosecute. Therefore the Bill is only placing the London County Council in the position of every private individual in the Metropolis. So with regard to the non-performance of duty by the Sanitary Authority. At present in London any person may make complaint against the Sanitary Authority to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board may hold a local inquiry, and if satisfied that the complaint is just, they may appoint parsons to perform the duty which ought to have been performed by the Sanitary Authority. They may, under that law, appoint the London County Council; but we make a modification of the law in favour of the Vestry. We say that in
  42
  future it shall not be in the power of any individual to put the Sanitary Authority to all the trouble of a local inquiry; but, that when a complaint is made to the Local Government Board it shall be made by some properly constituted authority. We say that the London County Council must satisfy themselves that the Local Authority has made default in the performance of their duty before the Local Government Board can be set in motion. It is needless to say that in many matters the London County Council have already very extensive powers. They are the absolute authority in regard to the disposal of sewage, and under the Housing of the Working. Classes Act of last year they have large power of interference where the Local Authority does not carry out the Act. It seems to me right and proper that in regard to the great question of public health in London, the County Council ought to be charged with the performance of duty, which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, after inquiry, has not been adequately and properly performed by the Local Authority. I think the House will see that, at any rate, we have prepared this Bill in a very large and liberal spirit. We shall consider fairly all representations made to us by Local Authorities to strengthen and simplify the law and enable it to be properly carried out. If the House will give its assent to the Second Beading of this, and the Bill which stands next on the Order Paper, I will propose to refer them to one of the Standing Committees, which will undoubtedly go through the Bills in a businesslike way, and make them even better than they now are.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. JAMES STUART: I and my hon. Friends have no opposition whatever to offer to these Bills. The right hon. Gentleman has done rightly in endeavouring to consolidate the law affecting the sanitation of the Metropolis, as he last year consolidated the law affecting the housing of the poor. The only misfortune is that this consolidation did not take place

  43
  earlier. When the Local Government Act of 1888 was being passed we called attention to the necessity of this consolidation, for the distraught condition of the Public Health Acts, as they affect the Metropolis, has been rather a bar and hindrance to the proper execution by Sanitary Authorities of their duties. In regard to the Bill now before us I think it right to say that all the clauses are not of equal merit and cannot all meet with the same amount of approval, but on the whole we recognise in them an endeavour to bring the law up to the requirements of the present time. The right hon. Gentleman with much reason impressed on the House the propriety of giving the County Council power to take up the matters in which the Local Sanitary Authority may be in default. I believe I shall be supported by all my hon. Colleagues who sit on the Opposition Benches in the view that the relation in which the right hon. Gentleman places the County Council to the Vestries or Sanitary Authorities in London is not only a right and proper one, considering the circumstances of the case, but is one which is almost absolutely necessary. The health of the Metropolis is a matter which concerns the whole Metropolis, and therefore any case in which a Sanitary Authority is in default ought to be dealt with by the Representative Body of the Metropolis as a whole. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman has given the County Council power to frame bye laws in certain cases where it has not to supersede the Local Authority. It is quite evident the right hon. Gentleman does not share that distrust of the County Council which some hon. Members representing Metropolitan constituencies have, or, at least, profess to have. I think that in respect to the housing of the poor and other work it has been called upon to perform, the County Council has shown very great power of self organising, especially considering the enormity of the work, and the freshness of most of its members to that work. Indeed, there are very few matters in regard to which holes can be picked in the action of the London County Council. I am glad the President of the Local Government Board emphasises his satisfaction at the way the London County Council has done its
  44
  work by the position he assigns to the Council under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to deal with the question of underground dwellings in a fair way; but I want particularly to call his attention to one matter in whick I think the Bill ought to be improved in Committee. The Lancet pointed out about a week ago, that the London County Council ought to have the same powers as to open spaces about houses, which are possessed by every urban authority in England and Wales. While the right hon. Gentleman confers powers upon the County Council in respect to Sanitary Authorities in default, I trust he will grant them such powers as the Lancet points out they ought to have. With regard to the question of water supply, I think it is perfectly right that a house should be regarded as an insanitary place if it be improperly supplied with water. The right hon. Gentleman provides that to damage the water supply shall be punishable by a fine. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider who they are who mostly damage the water supply of London to the great detriment of the public health of London; they are the water companies themselves who have the power to damage the sanitary condition of London by cutting off the water. Such a power ought not to be allowed. All the companies ought to be allowed to do is to recover their expenses or the debt due to them by the ordinary means. As was the case in the Bill for the housing of the working classes, there are two great omissions in this Bill. In the first place, in order to carry out properly the sanitation of London, we require to have additional funds placed at the disposal of the Public Authorities—funds other than those immediately got from the occupying ratepayers. In the second place, until the Local Government of London is completed by the establishment of efficient and properly constituted Local Authorities, who shall also be the Sanitary Authorities, we shall be constantly in difficulty in respect to the enforcement of legislation such as this and the Housing of the Working Classes Act. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, some Local Authorities have taken active steps in respect to the housing of the poor, but

  45
  others have not done so. I urge on the right hon. Gentleman the great necessity for the completion of the District Government of London.
  MR. KELLY: I desire to say a few words on this Bill. The hon. Member for Shoreditch commenced by eulogising the London County Council, then went on to advocate the taxation of ground rents, and wound up by complaining of the delay in the production of the District Councils Bill. I cannot see how the question of the taxation of ground rents has any connection with the health of London, but this I may say that the delay in bringing forward 'the District Councils Bill has been due to the action of hon. Members opposite, for the right hon. Gentleman told us that years ago he had the Bill drafted and ready to be produced. Now, I beg to thank the President of the Local Government Board for the extremely careful manner in which he has explained the provisions of this measure, and especially its technical clauses. But I am sorry it contains several proposals which will be found to be exceedingly unacceptable. There is, for instance, that wretched being the common informer brought to the fore again. I admit you cannot offer too great facilities for enabling a person aggrieved or a sanitary officer, to deal with existing nuisances, but I regret to see that one of the clauses of this Bill brings to the front that most dangerous and abominable of all 'nuisances—that pest, the common informer—to whom, in some cases under this Bill, a bribe of £25 is offered to show zeal in his odious calling. Then I come to my next objection to this Bill. We are subject in our great cities to the mistaken zeal of officials. Now, I think it is desirable that when a sanitary officer serves a notice upon a householder he should specify what work is required to be done. But Sub-section 2 of Clause 5 provides that the notice need not specify the work to be executed unless the Sanitary Authority think it desirable, obviously that Authority will be guided by the advice of its own officer, who may be ignorant of what should be done in a given case, and who might shelter himself under the cover of a general notice,
  46
  putting the unfortunate householder to a considerable amount of unnecessary expense. Other provisions of the Bill are, I think, equally unfortunate. Take, for instance, the burdens thrown upon owners and occupiers with reference to our streets. I do not think it wise or really in the public interest that we should continue the antiquated system of casting upon the occupier of a house the duty of sweeping away the snow from the pavement in front of his tenement. The present system of placing that duty upon him, subjects the unfortunate householder to have blackmail levied upon him by street loafers. If the work were undertaken by the Local Authority it could be done systematically, and hundreds of poor men would get an honest day's work, whereas it is now done by idle men in a most inadequate fashion, and paid for on a most extravagant scale. Who I should like to know will cleanse the pavements in front of chapels and churches? Who, too, is to be responsible in the case of unoccupied houses? I am afraid the names of defaulters in such cases could only be obtained at great expense, and certainly it would not be possible to ensure the snow being swept away within 24 hours. Another fault of the present system is that the snow is invariably swept into the road without regard to the necessity of securing a crossing for pedestrians. If the Vestry did the work that matter would be attended to. Now, one feature in the Bill is the clause with reference to underground rooms. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the warnings of the Acts of 1855 and 1875. What is the law now?
  MR. RITCHIE: I said distinctly that the Metropolis Management Act did contain a provision with regard to light, ventilation, &c, but it was not to be compared with the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875.
  MR. KELLY: What are the provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855? One is that no underground room shall be occupied unless it is 7ft. high and 1ft. above the surface of the street adjoining. In this Bill the 1ft. limit is altered to 3ft. Again, the Act

  47
  of 1855 says there shall be an open area 3ft. wide all round the room. Will the House believe that that is to be altered to 4ft.? And who is to be punished for infringing this law? I admit that the owner who lets underground rooms which ought not to be let in the interests of the public health should be promptly punished; but why should the ignorant, uneducated occupier be included along with the owner as liable to punishment? Let me point out the class of houses it will be impossible to let if this Bill becomes law. I admit frankly that if the London County Council had proper time to investigate these cases no great injustice would be done. I have not a word to say against the County Council. I do not think we are justified in distrusting our Local Representative Body. But undoubtedly the duty of dealing with these questions will be delegated to officers, some of whom are not too well paid, and to whom pecuniary inducements may be offered to neglect the proper discharge of their duties. Now, in the neighbourhood in which I live a large number of flats have been built. The upper floors bring in large rents, averaging about £200 a year, and the basement floors, of course, not so much, probably about £90 yearly. I have visited several of those houses, and I found that the area round one side of the room was 4½ft. to 5ft., while on the other side it was about 3ft. If those rooms are untenanted at the passing of this Bill they cannot afterwards be let. Some of these flats, too, are built on a slope, the effect of which is that the rooms at one end of the block are letable, and those at the other end unletable. It would be much better to say to what kind of buildings the restrictions shall apply, instead of spreading the net so widely, because many buildings will be included within the scope of the measure that are airy, perfectly healthy, and constructed on the newest principles. I confess I feel that London has very little to gain from the Bill. There are provisions so harassing in their character, the machinery of the common informer is so foreign to our English spirit, there is so little done to relieve the unfortunate Metropolitan householders from the foolish burdens cast upon them, that I should feel disposed, if any hon. Member
  48
  were to move the rejection of the Second Reading, to support him. It is true the Bill is going to a Committee; I should like to know which?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Standing Committee on Law.
  MR. KELLY: I can only say I am sorry it is not going to the Trade Committee instead of the Law Committee. The Bill deals with questions of common sense, not nice points of law, and those questions can be much better dealt with by men of the world than by lawyers. No doubt it deals with something like 29 Acts of Parliament, but it is necessary that a measure of this kind should be clearly understood by the people, and it is more likely to be couched in plain terms if dealt with by the Committee on Trade. I can only repeat that it will require most careful supervision in Committee.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Member, in the course of his speech, made an observation which I think ought not to be passed by without notice. He said that the District Councils Bill had been delayed by the action of lion. Members on this side of the House. Now, that is a statement of an altogether Party character, and out of place in discussing this measure. But that is not all. It is absolutely, and even ridiculously, without even a shadow of foundation, because hon. Members on this side of the House have always met the proposals of right hon. Gentlemen in so fair a spirit that the President of the Local Government Board has himself repeatedly expressed his obligations and acknowledgments of the reception which has been given to them. Therefore, I do think that the observation ought never to have been made. Now, I am entirely in accord with the hon. Member in his condemnation of the impolicy of continuing and even extending the system of harassing householders in connection with the cleansing of footways in front of their houses. At present the duty is imposed on the householder of clearing snow away from the pavement fronting his house—and that is work, I think, which ought to be undertaken by the Local Authority rather than by individual

  49
  ratepayers. There is another important change introduced in this Bill to which I think sufficient attention has not been drawn, and that is that power is given to enable the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board or the Sanitary Authority to charge not merely a patient for his maintenance in hospital, but also the friends of that patient. That is quite a new power.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is slightly in error. The law at present is that the Sanitary Authority or the Asylums Board may in the case of non-pauper patients charge the cost of maintenance on those legally responsible for the maintenance of the patient, and, consequently, the Asylums Board can sue not only the patient, but they can also sue his friends.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: That may be the case with regard to London, but I trust I am not precluded from going into the question, as it affects the country at large, and in that direction I think it must be admitted that at present the expense can only be recovered from the patient. This Bill will extend the liability. Now I come to the question of making bye-laws. I think that one of the most important objects of this Bill is that of allowing the London County Council to make bye-laws, and I wish to submit that subordinate authorities in London should be equally subjected to these bye-laws.
  MR. RITCHIE:They are.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: That is not so, for I find that the City of London is exempted from the operation of this provision. Now, we know that large and important areas, such as Chelsea and Kensington, are to be brought under the operation of this provision, and I think it is most unfair to exempt the City of London. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Shoreditch in his views as to the desirability of empowering the London County Council to pass bye-laws in terms similar to those which are contained in Section 157 of the Public Health Act. That section provides that an Urban Authority may make bye-laws with regard to sufficiency of space for buildings, and to secure the circulation of air, &c. It is true that in the Metropolis Buildings Act there is a clause
  50
  which deals with this subject, but it is by no means in terms so broad as those which are contained in the Public Health Act. Take, for instance, the case of the notification of disease. There is a provision in this Bill which entitles the managers of every elementary school to receive a list of cases of infectious diseases. Of course, it is desirable to isolate, and the House has on various occasions recognised the desirability of isolating, cases of infection in the interest of the health of the general community. But, at the same time, it is extremely desirable that undue publicity should not be given to the prevalence of infectious disease, and it seems to me that in this provision the Bill is doing that which may lead to considerable difficulty, because it insists on the intimation to a large number of persons, who, not being officials, are not bound to secrecy, that disease is prevalent in a particular house. I do hold that it is important that unnecessary publicity should not be given to the fact that infectious disease has broken out in a particular house. With reference to the provision dealing with Coroners' Court Houses, I certainly advocate the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" in the clause, for I hold that it is most undesirable that inquests should be held in public houses. I also think that as a Town Council is empowered to provide a market subject to the consideration of private rights, similar power ought to be given to the London County Council. Again, the injury which results to health and property from smoke in the Metropolis is becoming a question of grave public importance, and I would suggest that this is a good opportunity for making the Smoke Acts more stringent than they are at present. I think the Bill contains many good features, and I have no doubt that in Committee it will be very much improved.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: 1 desire, at the request of the Local Authority in my constituency, to say one or two words in regard to these Bills; No doubt many of their provisions are required, and they will introduce valuable amendments in the law. Provisions relating to public health are

  51
  at present scattered up and down many Statutes, and so ingeniously concealed from the people; and I venture to think it would be a great advantage to have them consolidated in one measure. I think, too, it is very important that both owners and occupiers should know their obligations, rights, and remedies, and should take a personal part in securing the sanitary condition of the Metropolis. In regard to the amending Bill, I think it is also necessary. It is almost incomprehensible that London should be content to continue to be governed under an Act which is in a very great degree obsolete. It is almost a caricature that Michael Angelo Taylor's Private Act should be the public law of London— an Act under which arrests, for instance, can be made for only minor nuisances.
  MR. RITCHIE: Without warrant.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Yes, without warrant. These Bills will undoubtedly improve the law, and bring it in accord with modern requirements. Bat I am asked by the Local Authority of my district to call attention to one or two points. One is the disposition of the two Bills to subordinate Local Authorities to what I may call the Central Authority. I am one of those who sympathise with and do not distrust the County Councils. I have had too much experience of Provincial Municipal Councils to think that these matters cannot be safely entrusted to the County Councils. Still, one of the defects of the London Council has been that it has scarcely been able to cope with the immense amount of work imposed upon it. Yet these Bills give it additional powers of control and additional duties which it will hardly be able to fulfil adequately. Take, as an instance, a portion of the work which has been done in Islington, and which the County Council is now to be asked to undertake. Islington has a population equal to that of any of our large towns, save, perhaps, some four or five. I may mention, as an illustration of its public work, that during the last decennial period no less than 293,565 inspections of houses have been made. No complaint has been made of the manner in which that duty has been performed, notwithstanding the complexity of the law under which it has been dis-
  52
  charged. Yet the right hon. Gentle man asks that power and control should be given to the Central Authority, though he has made no allegation of neglect of duty in these matters by the Local Authorities. On the contrary, I always like to look upon the parish as the unit in dealing with these matters. We must also always remember that the Local Authorities have great experience of details and great knowledge of local requirements, and it would be dangerous, in my opinion, to attempt to supersede them by conferring powers upon the Central instead of the Local Authority. I do not hesitate to say that there is too much tendency towards a Central Authority rather than to the development of Local Authority in the Bills before the House. Again, some of their provisions are too drastic. One imposes a penalty of £50 for not keeping the streets clear of snow, with a continuing penalty of 5s. a day. But, in regard to such emergencies, the Local Authorities have many things to consider, including the question of the unemployed, and whether they should keep a large staff of officials, at great extra cost to the public, for the purpose of meeting those emergencies. Another provision, following the precedent of the Scotch Bills, makes the Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors irremovable, except with the consent of the Local Government Board. I think such a provision exhibits the dangerous tendency of distrust of the Local Authority; and I am disposed to think that the sense of responsibility is decreased by these over-riding and appeal provisions. The tendency to centralisation in these Bills will deprive localities of the services of the best men; and while I welcome some of their provisions, I think in Committee that exception will have to be taken to others of them.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I think this Bill will do a great deal to remove some of the minor miseries under which Londoners have lived for so many years, and add greatly to the health and convenience of the community. I am bound to say that I think the Committee on Law requires to be strengthened before such a Bill can be threshed out. This Bill notably does one

  53
  thing, it abolishes that most detestable custom of putting salt on the snow in the streets—thus lowering the temperature, producing a mixture which finds its way through any shoe leather, and causing great pain to horses which have to stand in it. I am glad also to find that the Bill abolishes the emptying of dust bins at all hours of the day. The other day, in Grosvenor Square, at 11 in the forenoon, I found dust bins being emptied, and the air all around thickened with the dust, probably laden with germs, or baccili, which spread over the Metropolis, thus causing epidemics, which the Local Government Board, with all its skill, would probably be unable to run to the ground. We have heard nothing about fog, which is a difficult matter to deal with. I am glad to see that the responsibility of removing snow slush is to be taken from the householder, who does not do it well, and imposed upon the Local Authority. With some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations regarding the prevention of infectious diseases, I warmly agree. I think the schoolmaster will be able to put his fingers on infected areas, and probably prevent the outbreak of disease, not only in the school but in the locality. As to the dismissal of Medical Officers of Health, their duties, if properly discharged, are so likely to excite prejudice, that I think their dismissal should only be with the consent of the Local Government Board. I do not intend to say more upon this Bill, which appears a very good one, and which I have no doubt, when put into shape in Committee, will confer great benefit upon the Metropolis.
  MR. ISAACS: In the few words I have to offer in connection with this Bill, for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman, I am rather disposed to follow the line of argument adopted by the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart), when he said that possibly the better course to have pursued would have been for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to. have addressed himself in the first place to the completion of the Government plan, discussed some years ago, by the introduction of a Bill for establishing Municipal Councils. No
  54
  doubt if such a course had been pursued a considerable amount of the time that will be necessary for the consideration of the two measures which the right hon. Gentleman has now thought it necessary to introduce, would have been saved. I think, however, that there are in those two measures many elements which are likely to be productive of great benefit to the people of London. With regard to the second Bill, which is a measure of consolidation, I think that measure is one which will be found to be of the greatest service to those who are interested in the carrying out of the sanitary work required in the Metropolis. It is an important measure, having a wide scope, and embracing no fewer than 29 other measures, all of which deal with the government of the Metropolis. With regard to the measure immediately under discussion, I would say that I think there is great cause for congratulation, although some of its provisions are such as will have to be very carefully considered when the Bill is sent to the Committee upstairs. I fully share with the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) the dread he has expressed lest the Bill should prove to be the means of finding undue employment for that most unpleasant, disagreeable, offensive, and obnoxious person, the common informer. If the House looks carefully into the measure, I think it will see how large are the inducements it offers to that person to put in force the provisions of the Bill. The penalties imposed by some of the clauses are exceedingly severe. One of them has already been referred to, namely the clause which imposes a penalty of £50 on the Local Authority for neglecting to cleanse the roadways, and, in addition to this, inflicts further penalties of a continuous character. These, however, are details, which, no doubt, would be better considered upstairs. In addition to the objections I have urged to the provisions which may offer inducements for a large employment of the common informer, there is another matter which I think is likely to meet with grave opposition on the part of the existing Local Authorities. I refer to the provision for calling into requisition the action of the London County Council on matters which, in my opinion, are

  55
  not the proper subjects with which they ought to deal. If I correctly estimate the duties of that body, they are of a general and metropolitan character. The London County Council are called upon to deal with London street improvements, with main drainage, with the means of inter-communication between the north and the south sides of the Thames, and with other matters of a large and comprehensive character, and I do not think that the London County Council would have its time usefully employed in the settlement of bye-laws as to the manner in which the streets are to be cleansed. Admitting that it may be desirable there should exist some means of dealing with this question, it cannot be contended that a great body like the London County Council should be called upon to lay down rules for every district of the Metropolis as to the hours at which the cleansing of the streets should be performed. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he will have to forego a good many of the references he has made in this Bill to that body. At any rate, I have little doubt that he will meet with a considerable amount of opposition on the part of the existing Authorities against what they may consider to be an undue interference in matters coming within their province. I would also say that, as the Bill now stands, it is simply a piece of patchwork, that is to say, it can hardly be regarded as a complete measure. With regard to one provision relative to the cleansing of the footpaths, I venture to think that even on the score of economy the householders of the Metropolis would greatly welcome provisions under which the cleansing of the footways, as well as of the roadways, should be undertaken by the Local Authorities. At present, whenever there is a heavy fall of snow, the householders are subject to the enforcement of blackmail in order to get the work of clearing the snow away from the front of their premises performed; and this alone would, I think, induce them to go a long way towards supporting a proposal which might even involve a slight extra addition to the rates, by throwing this work upon the Local Authorities. As it is, we call upon the Local Authorities to cleanse
  56
  the roadways, and they do it; but we leave it to the option of the householders to cleanse the footways at such times as they may think fit; and the result is, that after the Local Authority has rendered the carriage-ways clean, the householder gets to work, and undoes what has already been effected by the Local Authority. With regard to the portion of the Bill which deals with underground dwellings, I am in entire accord with the right hon. Gentleman, and I also particularly approve of those clauses which deal with the sale of unwholesome food; but, on the other hand, I think that the provision with regard to making known the existence of infectious diseases to the whole of the Local Authorities of the Metropolis is, perhaps, a little too drastic, and may need some amendment upstairs. However, taking the Bill as a whole, and having regard to the general scope of the measure, I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown the House how completely he has mastered the subject, and how eminently capable he is of dealing with this important matter in a lucid and practical manner. To these few observations I have only to add that 1 shall give the measure my most cordial support.
  MR. CAUSTON: In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill I hope its passage may not be taken as an excuse for any further delay in the introduction of the District Councils Bill. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who has said that the District Councils Bill ought to have been introduced in preference to this; because much of the work the House is now doing will have to be gone over again when that Bill is brought forward. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend to the desirability of introducing upon the Grand Committee, which will have to consider this Bill, the scientific element, and I hope the Committee of Selection will not forget the London Members who ought to be appointed on the Committee, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton reminds me, particularly those who sit on this side of the House. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Pesident of the Local Government Board whether he can relieve the anxiety which is felt by certain Medical

  57
  Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors who now hold appointments in the Metropolis with regard to the protection to be afforded them under this Bill? By-Clause 35, Sub-section. 8, the Bill provides that Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors appointed after the commencement of the Act shall be removable by the Local Authority, with the consent of the Local Government Board; but there is no provision for the protection of the officers who now hold these appointments. They are anxious to know whether they have been intentionally omitted from the clause, or whether they have only been omitted by accident. I hope it will be thoroughly understood that although we are going to vote, as I trust, most cordially, for the Second Reading of this Bill, there are many details which will have to be thoroughly threshed out in Grand Committee.
  MR. ISAACSON: I have only risen to express a hope that my right hon. Friend will permit the introduction of a clause preventing auctioneers and house agents from selling or letting unhealthy houses. We know that such houses are let. An instance occurred only a short time ago in the neighbourhood of Grosvenor Square where my hon. Friend has told us he saw the dust cart. A house was sold by an auctioneer, and when it was examined it was found to contain five open cesspools. It took some considerable time to cart away what proved to be no less a quantity than 500 cart-loads of polluted soil, which, of course, had to be done at considerable cost. I might mention another case of a resident in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park, where the house had not been occupied more than three or four weeks before the father and daughter and five servants were laid up with fever. There was another case in Bayswater where something of a similar character occurred. What I want my right hon. Friend to do is to insist that every auctioneer and house agent, when submitting for sale or for letting residential premises, shall produce an agreement to which shall be attached a sanitary document certifying that the house is fit for habitation, and in good sanitary condition. Hon. Members have probably
  58
  little idea of the amount of trouble that has been caused by the letting of unsanitary houses. I could mention the names of celebrated people who have met an early death through inhabiting unsanitary dwellings, and I shall be glad, if my right hon. Friend will permit me, on the Third Reading of this Bill, to put down an Amendment to the effect that every house, before it is sold or let by an auctioneer or his agent, shall be officially certified as being in a fit sanitary condition. I hope before the Third Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept this suggestion, and meanwhile I am glad to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. WHITMOREWith other Metropolitan Members I thank my right hon. Friend for the introduction of this Bill, but I desire to emphasise the remarks which have been made as to the undesirability of diminishing the responsibility and independence of the Local Bodies, the Local Vestries, or the District Councils of the future. Representing as I do a district which has always been honourably distinguished for its sanitary administration, I feel bound to give expression to the very strong-feeling that there exists, the feeling of anxiety that some of the provisions of the Bill will diminish the direct responsibility of the Local Bodies. I cannot help putting this question to my right hon. Friend. The new District Councils, as we all hope, will be more able Administrative Bodies than the present Vestries, but, after all, does not the secret of all successful administration depend on the personnel of those who are the administrators? The question then is, how to attract to the new District Councils a worthier clas3 of men than those who have managed local affairs in London heretofore? One method of doing this is to give to the new bodies large and important functions, and to make them feel themselves directly responsible to the ratepayers. I cannot help thinking that just at this very moment, when we are all hoping for better local government in the future, a step is being taken by some of the provisions of this Bill which will

  59
  tend to discourage really responsible people from going on the Local Bodies, and therefore it will be necessary in Grand Committee to watch most carefully those clauses which seem to fetter unnecessarily the powers of the present District Bodies, and to give unnecessarily increased powers of supervision to the County Council. Subject to these criticisms, I thank the Government for the introduction of a most important and excellent measure.
  MR. RITCHIE: Though I have no right to trouble the House with any further remarks, I hope I may be allowed, with the indulgence of the House, to acknowledge the sympathetic manner in which the proposals of the Government have been received, and especially by the London Members. It is not surprising that objection should be taken to certain details, considering that the Bill deals with so many important and difficult questions, When the Bill gets into Grand Committee I think it will be found that the fears expressed with regard to the possible interference of the County Council with the Local Authorities are in most cases exaggerated, if not altogether groundless. The Bill does not go one bit further than the existing law. At the present moment it is open to any ratepayer in London to make a representation to the Local Government Board that a certain Vestry is not performing its duty with regard to a particular question, and the Local Government Board, if satisfied that there is ground for such complaint, may hold a local inquiry and call upon the Local Authority concerned to perform their duty within a limited time, and, unless it is so performed, may appoint any person or body of persons, including the London County Council, to perform it. Therefore, the Bill is not going beyond the existing law. In some respects, indeed, it modifies the existing law, because it provides that it shall not be in the power of any individual to put that machinery in motion but the County Council alone; and the County Council even will not be at liberty to interfere until they have obtained the previous assent of the Local Government Board.
  60
  We must be satisfied that the Local Body is in default. We believe that in the vast majority of cases no such power will have to be exercised, but I think the House will see that, having regard to some possible miscarriage in the administration of the law, it is desirable that such power should exist. If in any matter of form or language the Bill is thought to create undue powers of interference, the Government will be glad to consider Amendments to remove doubts or difficulties in that connection. I should be the last person to do anything calculated to prevent good men from coming forward to serve on these Local Bodies. Allusion has been made to the cleansing of footpaths with the suggestion. that this should be a duty cast upon the Local Authority; and though I have not seen my way to altering the responsibility that now lies with * the occupier, 1 shall be perfectly ready to consider any proposal made in Committee. Then a question has been raised by the hon. Member for South wark (Mr. Causton) as to the position of Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors. There are a large number' of these, and in the great majority of cases they are appointed from year to year, and the position is this—that at the end of the term of their present appointment they will become officers under this Bill; until the present appointments cease they will not. Clearly, it would be most injudicious that we should impose upon Local Authorities the obligation of maintaining every one of these officers in their position irrespective of their qualifications for permanent occupation of their posts. When the new appointments are made at the end of the year or in three years they will become officers under this Bill, but until their period of appointment is passed they will not.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by re-appointment? I am not aware of the practice in London.
  MR. RITCHIE: I refer to officers who hold their posts for a year and are re-appointed.
  MR. MORTON: That, so far as I know, is only done by the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London.
  MR. CAUST0N: Many officers are not subject to re-appointment.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware of cases in which they are not re-appointed; but, in any event, existing appointments may be terminated by mutual consent and a new appointment made. But it would be impossible to impose an absolute duty on the Local Authority to keep on a man without an opportunity of considering whether he is a fit and proper person to be appointed permanently. I am afraid it would be impossible to carry out the suggestion about certificates for sanitary houses. In order to certify every house to be in a perfectly sanitary condition it would be necessary virtually to pull the house to pieces, and I am afraid it might be found that there were very few houses in London faultless in that respect. I will only say in conclusion that the Government do not regard this Bill as a Party one, or, in a political sense, a contentious one; and we shall be glad to listen to any suggestions in Committee, and to consider dispassionately, and I hope favourably, all proposals which we think will be improvements in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 232.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  ASSESSMENT OF TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL—(No. 221.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [6 th April] reported.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–92.
  Resolution 1 (see page 1816) agreed to
  Resolution 2.
  "That a sum, not exceeding .£78,904, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum cessary to defray the Charge which will come
  62
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  MR. CAUSTON: May I ask the First Commissioner a question I was unable to put to him last night with regard to the use of Constitution Hill and the desire that the drive should be continued: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the road from behind Carlton House Terrrace to Trafalgar Square will be continued, opening up what is now a pavement as a roadway?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: That is part of the plan recommended by the Committee three years ago on the Admiralty Buildings, and it is intended to carry out that proposal as soon as the Admiralty Buildings are completed.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 3.
  " That a sum, not exceeding £29,625, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  MR. MORTON: In this Vote occurs the charge for lamp oil, and in regard to this I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the present contractor has held the contract, and if any other contractors have been asked to tender during the last 20 or 30 years? I am informed that the contract has been in the hands of one individual for a great many years.
  MR. PLUNKET: The contract is from year to year, and I know that for the last three years it has been in the hands of one contractor, I rather think others have been invited to compete for it, but of that I am not sure. But I have" undertaken to give a Return fully explaining the whole circumstances.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 4 and 5 (see pages 1872–3): agreed to.
  Resolution 6.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £28,461, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I take the opportunity to make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentle man in favour of lighting up the Natural History Museum in the evening and on dark days. I know the experiment at the British Museum has not been successful, but that is a museum of antiquities, and is not attractive for the people generally. The South Kensington Museum contains a collection of out of date out of the way gimcracks—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! it is now ten minutes to 7.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I was merely asking a question. I have no intention of opposing the Vote.
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  ARMY SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 211.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended to be considered to-morrow.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS [COSTS].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the costs of prosecutions undertaken by the Board of Trade, which may be incurred under any Act of the present Session to amend 'The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.'"
  Resolution agreed to.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.—(No. 245.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
MOTION.

  MIDDLESEX REGISTRY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to make temporary provision for the business of the Middlesex Registry of Deeds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. William Henry Smith.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 265.]

  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (LONDON) VALUES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the net values of Government property in the County of London upon which the contribution in lieu of rates is based, showing each parish separately."—(Mr. Jackson.)

EVENING SITTING.

  RATING OF MACHINERY (No. 2) BILL. (No. 18.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th February] " That the Bill be now read a second time.''
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  BRITISH EMIGRATION TO BRAZIL. (9.1.) MR. TOMLINSON (Preston),
  who had upon the Paper the following—
  "To call attention to the condition of British Emigrants to Brazil; and to move, That more systematic means should be adopted for publishing authentic information as to the climatic and social conditions of countries outside the British Empire which offer inducements for the immigration of British subjects, and as to the condition and prospects of British subjects who have emigrated to those countries,"
  said: I have not received the information which enables me to bring on my Motion, and, therefore, I will not move it.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock