Sitting of 26 June 1891

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  MRS. QUINTON AND MRS. GRIMWOOD.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the total amount of the yearly pensions accorded to Mrs. Quinton and to Mrs. Grimwood from the Bengal Civil Fund and from the special pensions just awarded to them, respectively; will the amount of these pensions, and also the £1,000 granted to Mrs. Grimwood for exceptional services, be wholly borne by the Indian or partly by the Imperial Exchequer; and, if by the former, on what grounds?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Both Mrs. Quinton and Mrs. Grimwood are entitled to pensions of £330 a year from the Bengal Civil Service Fund—a fund to which their husbands contributed. Mrs. Quinton will receive, in addition, a special pension of £300, and Mrs. Grimwood a special pension of £140. These pensions, except so far as they come out of the contributions of Mr. Quinton and Mr. Grimwood to the Bengal Civil Fund, will be paid out of Indian Revenues, because Mr. Quinton and Mr. Grimwood were officers in the Service of the Government of India.

  THE MANIPUR PRINCES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the sentences of death lately passed on the two Manipur Princes, whether he is aware that an appeal lies to the Viceroy of India, and that the Viceroy exercises appellate functions similar to those of the High Court, and is therefore bound to hear counsel on the case; whether he is aware that the Manipur Princes have appointed counsel to appear for them, and that the Viceroy declines to hear counsel on their behalf, though the trial is professedly judicial; and whether the Secretary of State for India will make representations to the Viceroy on the subject?
  *SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State is informed that the Viceroy does not exercise in this matter appellate functions similar to those of the High Court. The Government of India, as the paramount Power, have appointed a tribunal for the trial of the accused in Manipur, and have reserved to themselves the power to deal with the sentence passed by such tribunal according as they may consider advisable after perusal of the papers in the case. Under these circumstances it would be unusual for the Viceroy to hear counsel.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the arguments in the appeal of the "Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v. Pemsel" were concluded in March, 1890, and that the delay in delivering judgment is causing great inconvenience in the administration of a number of charities, the trustees of which are waiting the judgment, in order to know whether they are entitled to a return of Income Tax; and whether he will ascertain from the Lord Chancellor and state a date before the Long Vacation when judgment will be delivered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that the judgment will be delivered before the House rises.

  THE SHIP FLODDEX
  LORD H. BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in the case of the British ship Flodden, pillaged by Natives on the Yangtsze River in August, 1883, to obtain compensation from the Chinese Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The case has formed the subject of instructions to Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, and has been the subject of repeated representations to the Chinese Government. Those representations have not, however, hitherto resulted in any grant
  1582
  of compensation. The Chinese Government have not admitted their liability to make compensation, and have refused to levy a fine on the district. But they undertook to repeat the directions already given for the discovery of the wreckers and the stolen property. These fresh directions have, unfortunately, had no effect, and in view of the fact that the vessel was deserted by the officers and crew and left entirely derelict Her Majesty's Minister does not feel that the case can be strongly pressed. Her Majesty's Government cannot but acquiesce in that opinion, which is in consonance with the conclusion originally come to by them on the case after consideration with the Law Officers of the Crown.

  THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he could explain to the House why no provision is made for the promotion of the Assistant Geologists on the English staff, who have become experts in the special work of the Geological Survey in the course of 20 years' service; and why a gentleman was added to the staff in 1888 and given senior rank?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COLNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member's question does not quite accurately express the state of the case. There is nothing to prevent assistant geologists from being promoted to the rank of geologists to fill vacancies in the latter class. But the number of geologists is fixed, and the Treasury refused when we pressed in 1889 to be allowed to revert to the system which was in operation until the reorganisation of the Survey in 1876—namely, that the assistant geologist, on reaching the maximum pay of his grade and being reported efficient, should ipso facto be promoted. The reason for the addition of a gentleman to the staff in 1888 with senior rank was that the services of a trained petrographer were urgently needed, and could be obtained in no other way. But there was no hardship to any member of the staff. It was a new office, the qualifications for which were not possessed by any member of the existing staff.

  ZETLAND.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the administration of the highways under "The Local Government Act, 1889," Section 77, it is competent to the County Council of Zetland to constitute the whole county one district for highway purposes. notwithstanding that the county contains more than six parishes, and has been divided into districts for the purposes of the management and maintenance of highways under the Local Road Act in force prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act of 1889?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): On reference to Section 15 of the Zetland Roads Act of 1864, I find that the county was divided into certain districts for road management. This being so, I do not consider it competent, under the Local Government Act, 1889, for the County Council of Zetland to constitute the whole county into one district.

  GAMBLING IN THE ARMY.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return, if moved for, of all non-commissioned officers who have during the last three years been punished either for allowing gambling or card playing to take place or for participating in it; whether he is aware that, among other cases, a non-commissioned officer named Duckworth, now a sergeant in the Ordnance Store Corps, was reduced in rank for permitting gambling in the barrack room at Bermuda, and Sergeant Baskett, now canteen sergeant in the Ordnance Store Corps, was also punished for permitting gambling in the mess at Aldershot, and a raid was made upon the mess premises and several non commissioned officers were arrested and tried; and whether such a Return could be obtained from the sheets of Courts Martial and regimental and company defaulters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): A Return of minor punishments could only be given by throwing great labour on all regiments. A Return of punishments by sentence of Courts Martial could, of course, be given; but
  1584
  it would be unfair to give the names, and, on the whole, I think that no object would be served by giving it. The cases referred to by the hon. Member do not appear to have been reported to headquarters.
  MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman, without giving the names, give a Return of the number and dates of Courts Martial with the nature of the offence?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I do not think that any object would be served by so doing.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give roughly the number of cases?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That could be done only by most exhaustive inquiries in connection with every regiment.
  MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of Courts Martial for offences of this kind?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will consider whether that is possible. It may be.

  THE SHENSTONE SCHOOL.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the evidence given in the inquest on the body of James Harry Russell, aged eight years and nine months, in which it was stated that the lad had been hit about the head with a strap and a stick by the schoolmaster of the Shenstone School, near Lichfield; and whether it is the intention of the Education Department to take any action in reference to this matter?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The facts of this case have not been brought under the notice of the Department, and in the absence of evidence I am unable to answer the question.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I can supply the information that was given at the inquest.

  INLAND REVENUE LICENCES.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Magistrates have any power to refuse a certificate to an applicant for a licence from the Board of Inland Revenue, provided that evidence as to character is satisfactory, on the ground that the licence is not required

  1585
  to supply the wants of the neighbourhood; and if they have no such power. and the Board of Inland Revenue have no power to refuse a licence to anyone holding a Magisterial Certificate, whether any control over this method of increasing the facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquors is vested in any other authority; and, if not, whether he can encourage the hope that the Government will, nest Session, promote legislation with the object of giving control to some authority?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The first part of the hon. Member's question raises a legal point upon which I would not presume to give a reply; indeed the matter is not one which properly belongs to my Department. In answer to the second part of the question I may say that it is for the Government as a whole, and not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to decide upon legislation of such importance; but, so far as concerns my own opinion, I am not particularly encouraged by the reception of the attempt which we made last year in the direction of providing means for diminishing the number of public houses to make further experiments towards the same end.

  THE VISIT OF THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY.
  MR. C. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the public interest taken in the matter, he will give the earliest possible information of the day and hour of the expected arrival of the German Emperor and suite in the Thames, and the course of procedure in connection with his inspection of the British Fleet at the Nore?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I cannot state the exact time at which the German Emperor will arrive, as that will be regulated by his own convenience, but he does not intend to inspect the British Fleet at the Nore. I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that when he does arrive he may not be subject to the disgraceful mobbing which occurred at Spithead in 1889, and which, with the heavily laden passenger vessels, would,
  1586
  if any collision had occurred, have resulted in heavy loss of life. The Admiralty had on that occasion to report some of the offending vessels, whose captains were punished by the authorities employing them, so I hope that there will not be any repetition of such misconduct.

  THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY.
  MR. FORREST FULTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how long it is since the viaduct between Balcombe and Hayward's Heath, and the Balcombe tunnel itself, on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, have been inspected by the officials of the Board of Trade; and whether he is aware that, having regard to the marshy character of the ground beneath the foundations and the enormous increase of traffic in recent years, a very general opinion exists that the viaduct and the tunnel are not sufficiently secure?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade has never been entrusted by Parliament with the duty of periodically inspecting railway works, but the viaduct and tunnel in question were inspected in the usual course upon opening in 1841 by a Government Inspector. Having communicated with the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, I am informed that the viaduct between Balcombe and Hayward's Heath has recently been inspected by Sir John Fowler, who reports that he has examined every pier and arch and finds the structure (which is exceptionally strong) in excellent condition. He adds that the viaduct is maintained in the same sound state of efficiency as on the day of its completion. As regards the Balcombe tunnel, the company state that it is under constant supervision by their engineering staff, who are of opinion that it is in as good a state of preservation as when originally constructed.

  VENEZUELA.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any prospect of a settle-

  1587
  ment of the dispute with Venezuela: whether any steps have been taken to bring about a settlement; and whether Her Majesty's Government will accept arbitration, with a view to agreeing as to a boundary line, and to an equitable settlement of any claims which may have arisen on either side?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have been waiting for a reply from the Venezuelan Government to the last communication addressed to them on the question of the disputed frontier. It would not be convenient until that reply is received to make any statement on the subject. Her Majesty's Government have been always willing to accept a settlement consistent with British rights.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Does the delay arise from the answer of the Venezuelan Government not having come to hand?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The delay at present arises, of course, from our not being able to get an answer to the proposal.

  STEAM TRAWLERS.
  MR. C. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider the necessity of placing steam trawlers under the same rules as sailing trawlers, so far as relieving them from the obligation to get out of the way of any steamer or sailing vessel coming up on the starboard side when the steam trawler has its gear down, as their inability to comply with this rule is likely to result in collisions and loss of life?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Some time ago I appointed a Committee to consider the alterations in the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, recommended by the Washington Maritime Conference. This Committee (which was presided over by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Chesterton Division) did not make any distinct recommendation with regard to steam trawlers. Copies of the Report of the Committee have been sent to the Foreign Maritime Governments, and (when their remarks have been received) it will be necessary to again call the Committee together, and the subject to which the hon. Member refers shall then be submitted to it.

  THE SCOTTISH EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state in what form the application for the present year of the Scottish Equivalent Grant, to be made to Scotland in respect of the grant for free education in England, will be proposed to the House?
  MR. GOSCHEN: By Supplementary Estimate, I think, but I cannot pledge myself.
  MR. SEXTON: When will it be laid upon the Table?
  MR. GOSCHEN: When the Education Bill is disposed of.
  MR. SEXTON: Will it be brought forward as a Supplementary Vote?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SEXTON: What is the reason of that?
  MR. GOSCHEN: A Resolution would not be sufficient for the disposal of public money. The Government do not think that the three schemes can be carried out by Bill this Session, and therefore they propose to proceed by estimate for Scotland and Ireland. I believe an estimate will be sufficient.

  IMMIGRATION OF FOREIGNERS.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the very general disbelief which prevails as to the reliability of the Returns furnished by the Board of Trade with reference to the immigration of foreigners into this country; and whether any system is in force for ascertaining, with any approach to accuracy, the number of immigrants brought to English ports, especially in the case of vessels under a foreign flag?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid my right hon. Friend has a general disbelief in the publications of the Board of Trade, which may possibly prejudice him against these statistics. But I am not aware that there is any general feeling of the kind, nor do I think there is any cause for it. The figures are obtained from the Returns made by masters of vessels under the Alien Act of William IV. These Returns include the names,

  1589
  nationalities, and occupations of all aliens on board the vessels, and, as explained in the Report lately issued for 1890, can be checked by comparison with information obtained from other sources. But I have recently arranged with the Customs to apply an additional check to the figures by means of their officers who board the vessels. Their officers are directed to inquire from the master or officers of the ship the number of aliens on board, and the replies given are sent to the collector with a statement from the boarding officer whether they appear, from his own observation, to be correct. A comparison is then made with the Return sent in by the master. A further check is applied by the number of aliens on board being every now and then systematically counted and a comparison made with the Master's Return. All these arrangements apply to foreign as well as to British ships, as all vessels arriving at British ports come under the provisions of the Act to which I have referred. I believe that, in this way, accuracy in these Returns will be secured, but I am as anxious that they should be accurate as my right hon. Friend can be, and if any suggestions are made to me for improving the collection of these statistics, I shall be happy to consider them.

  THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has sanctioned the employment and payment of the three veterinary officers, attached to his Department in London, by the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Directors of the Yorkshire Show, to attend the shows of those Societies this year; whether the Principal Veterinary Surgeon to the Board, having an annual salary of £1,000, has, during the last three years, held the post of Principal to the largest Veterinary College in Great Britain; whether his predecessor resided at this institution; and why he is not required to give his whole time to the public service like the Principal Veterinary Surgeon to the Army?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): In reply to the first paragraph, the facts are as stated in
  1590
  the question. It has for several years been the practice for one or other of the veterinary officers of the Board to attend certain agricultural shows. No loss to the public service is involved, as these officers deduct the time they spend at the shows from the annual holidays to which they are entitled, and considerable advantage arises from their intercourse with leading agriculturists and from the information they obtain as to the circumstances of the various districts of the country. With regard to the second portion of the question, it is the fact that Professor Brown, the head of the Veterinary Department, has for three years been principal of the Royal Veterinary College, and his predecessor did reside at that institution. In reply to the last paragraph, the reason why Professor Brown has not been required to give up that appointment is that I found the arrangement in existence when I succeeded to the charge of the Agricultural Department, and I have seen no reason up to the present to disturb it.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the various important interests affected by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, recently introduced by him, and the impossibility, at this late period of the Session, of fully discussing the objections advanced by a large body of shipowners against the powers it would confer on the Board over which he presides, he will postpone the Second Reading of the Bill, with the view of introducing it in an amended form early next Session?
  MR. LEA: Is it not true that a ship has recently arrived at Liverpool, in which more than half the cargo of cattle had been lost on the passage, and is it not desirable that steps should be taken to prevent such suffering to the animals as must have occurred in such a case?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lea), I have to say that it is the case, I believe, that the steamship Hildgarde arrived at Birkenhead on the 17th of this month, having lost no less than 58 cattle out of

  1591
  a cargo of 110. The losses, I am led to understand, arose mainly from the fact of the fittings having given way, and from the injuries received by the animals from being loose and washed about on deck, but I am endeavouring to obtain further information on the subject. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Leng) is entirely mistaken in supposing that the Bill in question confers any new powers whatever upon the Board, except the power of conducting inquiries into the causes of loss among cattle at sea. The Board has full powers already to issue such orders and to make such regulations as may be necessary for the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering at sea. The Bill in question has been introduced in the hope of meeting some of the objections which are entertained by the shipowning interest to the existing powers of the Board, and it is, in my judgment, in the nature of a concession to their views rather than otherwise. But I have no intention at all at this period of the Session of attempting to press any measure on this subject to which serious opposition is offered. In that case, it will be my duty, under the existing powers of the Board, to issue such regulations as may seem to be needed in order to deal with the condition of affairs and the terrible sufferings which have been disclosed as too often occurring among cattle at sea in the Report of the Departmental Committee. I may add that I am, and have been, in frequent communication with representatives of various sections of the shipowning interest upon this question, and although I confess, from the attitude at present of some of those representatives, I am not very sanguine of the result, I have not yet abandoned the hope of arriving at an agreement on the subject.

  THE FEE GRANT.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education upon what principle the average attendance upon which the fee grant is to be paid in respect of half-time scholars is to be calculated under the Elementary Education Bill?
  SIR W. HARP DYKE: It will be made plain by a slight verbal Amendment that the average attendance for
  1592
  the purpose of the fee grant is to be calculated upon the same liberal scale as that upon which the ordinary Parliamentary grant is paid.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half-timers pay the same fee as full timers?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I dare not attempt to torture the House by entering into a full explanation.

  THE TITHE ACT.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, having regard to Section 6 of "The Tithe Act, 1891," poor and other rates which had been assessed in respect of tithe rent-charge before the passing the Act, and which remain unpaid, are recoverable; and, if so, whether they are recoverable in the manner provided for recovery of such rates before the Act came into force?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In my opinion, poor and other rates due in respect of tithe rent-charge before the passing of the Tithe Act, 1891, can be recovered either under Section 6 of that Act or under Section 8 of the Act 7 William IV. and 1 Vict., cap. 69.

  HAND-KNITTED SOCKS.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the reduction of the price for socks issued to Militia regiments from 8¾d. to 7½d. has rendered it impossible for the hand-knitted article, largely produced in the poorest districts of the North of Ireland, to compete with the woven; and whether the authorities, in view of the acknowledged superiority of the former, will re-consider the question?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The authorities responsible for military clothing do not admit the superiority of hand-knitted socks over those woven by machinery; but the practice has been to allow in the case of articles provided locally the average price paid to manufacturers on yearly contracts. This average has been for Militia socks 7s. per dozen, and the price paid locally has been 7s. 4d. The 8¾d. per pair was allowed specially for a limited number of pairs in consequence of the great distress in a particular locality last winter.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT LONDONDERRY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that letters arriving at Londonderry at 12.10 p.m. are not delivered even to persons residing or doing business close by the post office until about 1 o'clock, though the letters are sorted in transit from Dublin and the post office is only five minutes' walk from the railway station; and whether, in connection with the pending acceleration, he will endeavour to arrange for a more prompt delivery by any needful revision of the Londonderry Post Office staff?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I shall be glad to make inquiry upon the subject to which he refers, and to effect any acceleration in the delivery which may be practicable.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon what date Father Sweeney reported to Relieving Officer Boyle, Dungloe (County Donegal), that the families of Michael Rodgers, Rinamona, and Daniel Doogan, Rinamona, were in a starving condition; whether he is aware that of the eight children of Michael Rodgers the eldest is only ten years old, and two are recovering from fever; that of the nine children of Daniel Doogan the eldest is but eleven, and one is seriously ill; that Rodgers and Doogan are heavily in debt, have no stock, no credit, no work, and no means of procuring food; and whether the relieving officer has yet visited the families; and, if so, when, and with what result?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary desires me to say that as inquiry is necessary before the question can be answered he hopes the hon. Member will put it on a later day.
  MR. SEXTON: I will postpone it until Monday.

  THE ABDUCTION OF AN ENGLISH GIRL BY PERSIAN KURDS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of
  1594
  State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information on this subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Acting British Consul at Tabreez has been sent to Sonjboulak to inquire into the case of an English girl, who is stated to have been abducted by a Persian Kurd and carried into Turkish territory, from which, by the aid of the Turkish Authorities, she has been brought back to the Turkish Consulate at Sonjboulak. The Acting Consul is accompanied by a Persian escort provided by order of the Shah, and also by the Turkish Consul General at Tabreez.

  THE COINAGE BILL.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: May I ask whether it is intended to proceed with the Coinage Bill tonight?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the proceedings on the Public Health (London) Bill are terminated by 10 or half-past 10, I will proceed with the Coinage Bill. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will facilitate matters as far as possible with the object of taking the Bill at a convenient hour.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  MR. J. STUART: Will the President of the Local Government Board proceed with the London County Council Bill to-night?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir; if I am fortunate enough to reach it.

NAVY (SHIPS LOST OTHERWISE THAN IN ACTION).
Return ordered—
"Of the Number of Her Majesty's Ships which have been Lost otherwise than in Action from 1815 to 1840; giving in each case, where possible, the date, locality, and occasion of the loss; the description of Ship; and the finding, or an abstract of the finding, of the Official Court of Inquiry where such inquiry was held."—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

STAMP DUTIES BILL.—(No. 301.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 297.]
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 392.]

STAMP DUTIES' MANAGEMENT BILL. (No. 305.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c, with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]
Miuntes of Proceedings to be printed. [298.]
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 393.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Public Health (London) Bill, if under consideration at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order Sittings of the House.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. (No. 352.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. MORTON(4.5.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough) moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—
  "It shall not be lawful to occupy any dwelling house erected after the passing of this Act, unless the sanitary authority of the district in which such dwelling house is situate shall have issued a certificate that the said dwelling house is properly drained and fit for human habitation. And person who shall let, or who shall knowingly occupy, any such dwelling house without such certificate having been issued, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than ten pounds, and to a further penalty of one pound for every day during which the said dwelling house is occupied. A certificate under this section shall be issued by the sanitary authority of the district on the application of any person, upon such authority being satisfied that the house in respect of which the certificate is required is properly drained, and fit for human habitation, upon payment of a fee of not exceeding one pound one shilling."
  The hon. Member said: The object of this clause is to provide that no new house shall be occupied until the Sanitary Authority has given a certificate that it has been treated according to the bye-laws of the Board and is fit for habitation. The question arose in London some seven
  1596
  or eight years ago in consequence of a new house having been occupied without the consent of the Local Authority and a certificate that the works had been properly constructed. The Metropolitan Board of Works were asked to introduce a Bill into Parliament to obtain the powers which I now propose in this clause, and the reply made by the Board was that they would do so when they could find a convenient time. It was generally admitted that such powers ought to be given by Parliament to the Sanitary Authority, and on inquiry it was found that similar powers had been given to the Sanitary Authority in two instances outside London—Croydon and Gloucester. Much difficulty has arisen in London in regard to houses built by speculative builders which are in many cases discovered to be not so good as they ought to be. I do not know whether the Government propose to object to the clause, but I am satisfied that its insertion in the Bill would be of immense benefit to the people of the Metropolis, because a house would not be occupied until it was certified to be in a good condition, and both tenants and purchasers would have a guarantee that they had been properly inspected. I have inserted at the end of the clause a provision imposing a penalty of £10 for any breach of the rule, and directing a certificate to be given as to the sanitary state of a house on payment of a fee of one guinea to the Local Authority. I have no desire, however, to press that provision if the Government object to it. As, the whole matter is a non-political one, I hope the Government will give a favourable consideration to the clause.
  New Clause (Certificate as to sanitary condition of dwelling houses,)—(Mr. Horton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I take a friendly interest in this clause, because I had the pleasure of moving it in the Committee upstairs, but I confess that the support I received was not very strong. The question is undoubtedly worthy of consideration by the House, if only to pave the way for future legislation. I admit

  1597
  that there may be very great difficulty in a place like London in putting such a clause in operation, owing to the expense that would be entailed and the intricate nature of the machinery that would have to be instituted. I am, therefore, afraid that may hon. Friend is, perhaps, a little in advance of the time. I should, prefer, however, to see in the case of large public buildings, such as schools, theatres, churches, and large hotels, a measure of inspection similar in effect to this. It may be urged that people ought to protect themselves in the question of sanitary inspection of houses. This contention is all very well when considering the case of the rich, who can afford to pay a fee of £10 for a certificate, but poor people are obliged to take what they can get, and are often compelled, from the stress of circumstances, to put up with houses the condition of which may be prejudicial to their health. I hope that in any case the President of the Local Government Board may be able to say a sympathetic word in favour of the principle of the clause.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I can quite understand that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) has only one motive in proposing this clause, and I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member. The main object of the Bill is to secure proper sanitation in all houses, whether new or old. But the clause moved by the hon. Member is of an extremely drastic character, and it would lead, I think, to a very great deal of additional labour being thrown on the Sanitary Authorities and to the employment of a considerably larger number of officers than at present. I question, moreover, whether the clause, after all, would secure the object which the hon. Member seeks to attain. There is great difference among sanitary experts as to the sanitary requirements of houses so that they should be made fit for occupation. Perhaps when the Government come to deal with the building laws of the Metropolis, which I hope will be next year, it may be desirable to consider whether some amendments should not be made in the law in the direction indicated. At present, however, I must deprecate the introduction into this measure of a clause somewhat onerous and
  1598
  complicated in its character. It will be better to defer the matter until the whole question can be taken in hand.
  *SIR WALTER POSTER: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has expressed his sympathy with the object of this proposal; to this extent satisfactory progress in the consideration of the question has been achieved. I look upon the suggested consideration in connection with the building laws as the thin end of the wedge, and I hope that something will be done in this way, at an early day, to improve the sanitary condition of the houses of the Metropolis. I can quite see that the adoption of the clause would throw an enormous amount of additional work upon the authorities; but, at the same time, from a sanitary point of view, I think that something ought to be done.
  MR. LAWSON: I doubt whether an amendment of the building laws would satisfactorily meet the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend in this clause. Any authority would possibly shrink from undertaking the task of inspecting the new houses in the entire metropolitan area, and, if anything is to be done, the proper persons to undertake the work will be the sanitary officers in the different localities. I desire to see the powers of the Local Bodies extended rather than curtailed, and to see the various laws of this character administered in the localities rather than by a Central Authority.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to move, in page 42. after Clause 75, to insert the following clause:—
  "Any expenses incurred by a sanitary authority in maintaining in a hospital (whether or not belonging to that authority) a patient who is not a pauper, shall be a simple contract debt due to the sanitary authority from that patient or from any person liable by law to maintain him, but proceedings for its recovery shall not be commenced after the expiration of six months from the discharge of the patient, or, if he dies in such hospital, from the date of his death."
  The clause was in the Bill when it went up to the Committee, but it was there struck out. It is not unreasonable that these persons who can pay for their maintenance in hospitals should be

  1599
  asked to do so. The hospitals are an immense boon to those who are ill. I know that it is not a popular thing in these days to ask for repayment, but I think it is only fair and reasonable that those who can afford to pay should be required to pay some portion of the outlay incurred on them.
  New Clause (Maintenance of hospital patient)—(Mr. Bartley,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: As the Committee omitted this clause at my suggestion, I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite fairly represented the case. I should like to point out that hospitals for infectious diseases are not purely for the benefit of the patients admitted to them. They afford a security to the community at large in providing isolation for infectious cases. Dr. Thorne, the medical officer of the Local Government Board, clearly points out that the spread of epidemics has been prevented by isolation in the first stage of the disease, and he adds that the fear of having to contribute to the cost of maintenance would discourage patients from going into hospital. After this emphatic testimony, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the point. If it is worth while to have these hospitals at all, I think it would be the worst possible economy to discourage people from availing themselves of them by enforcing a charge.
  MR. RITCHIE: The matter, looked at from the point of view of expense, is very small; but, looked at from the point of view of public policy, it is very large. It is in the interests of the public generally that people who cannot obtain isolation in their own homes, when suffering from infectious disease, should go into hospital, and cease to be a danger to their neighbours. There is no compulsion to go into hospital, but it is all a matter of inducement; and looking at the fact that the amount that would be received would be infinitesimal, I really think it ought not to be allowed to weigh
  1600
  against the general good, which is that persons suffering from infectious diseases should go into some place where they can be properly treated and attended to.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: There was a considerable amount of discussion upon this clause in the Committee upstairs, and many instances were given to show the injurious effects it would have. I hope the clause will not be agreed to.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I know that there are many people who make use of hospitals and institutions who can well afford to pay for their treatment. As the Bill reads at present there is nothing to prevent the establishment of free dispensaries all over London, for there are no words restricting the powers to the case of epidemics or of infectious diseases.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is only hospitals for infectious disease that are in question. These are the hospitals which it is the duty of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to erect.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: In this case the hospital is to be erected by the Local Authority, and I take it that it is to be an institution in addition to the existing hospitals for the treatment of infectious diseases.
  MR. KELLY: I think that the Local Authorities ought not to have to decide who is to be sued for the trumpery expenses involved. I hope that the clause will be rejected.
  MR. DARLING: I do hope that, in addition to the clause which we are now considering, the President of the Local Government Board will insert some words of limitation, in order to meet the case raised by the hon. Members opposite. It appears to me perfectly plain that the hon. Member is right, and that if Clause 75 were passed the Sanitary Authority would have the power to establish at the public expense hospitals, not for infectious diseases specially, but for any kind of complaint, and to admit the inhabitants gratuitously. The words seem to be perfectly plain on that point. There is to be payment of an annual sum, but that is a payment, not by those who are sick, but by those who are well. If there was any doubt that the President of the Local Government Board was wrong on this point, it would be only necessary to read the

  1601
  previous clause, from which it appears that the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board are to be dealt with in accordance with a very different principle.
  MR. RITCHIE: As a matter of fact, the provisions for the supply of hospitals are not new. They are in the existing law, although they have not been acted upon. The only hospitals actually in question under this Bill are, therefore, the fever and small-pox hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. I will consider whether any amendment is required in the body of the Bill itself, in order to make it clear that the provision shall apply only to hospitals for infectious diseases.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): As to the general principle raised by the hon. Member opposite, I would point out that the Sanitary Board is the representative of the ratepayers of the locality. If he thinks the Local Authorities are extravagant, he, as a taxpayer, can bring them to book.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in this Amendment, because I believe it would be seriously injurious to the public health. The great difficulty always is to get the people to go into these hospitals. There is naturally a tendency in the poorest homes for the mother to keep her child in her house, whatever disease it may be suffering from; and if, in addition to that natural desire, we put before her the prospect of having to pay for the maintenance of the child in the hospital, there will be an additional inducement to keep the child at home. I am sure it will be a penny wise and pound foolish policy to pass this Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CREMER: I have not the slightest desire to delay the progress of this very useful measure, which I am grateful to the Government for having introduced. The clause I have now to propose was moved in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, considered it wag advisable to have some such clause, and I have been led to understand that he is willing to incorporate it in the Bill. It is exceedingly important, because it strikes at the root of the evil, which begins with the unprincipled builder, and
  1602
  I am sorry to say also with the unprincipled workman in too many instances laying down drains with dry joints and having closets imperfectly trapped. Frequently large holes are left between the joints, so that the sewage gas necessarily escapes into the building. I move the following clause—
  "A water-closet or drain shall not be improperly constructed or repaired so as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health. If there is any contravention of this section, any person undertaking or executing; such construction or repair shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20. Provided that where there has been such a contravention, and a person undertaking such construction or repair is charged therewith, he shall be entitled, upon information duly laid by him, to have any other person, being his agent, servant, or workman, whom be charges as the actual offender, brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge, and if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he had used due diligence to prevent the contravention of this section, and that the said other person committed the contravention without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, be shall be exempt from any fine, and the said other person may be summarily convicted of the contravention."
  New Clause (Improper construction or repair of water-closet or drain,)—(Mr. Cremer,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. RITCHIE: It is quite true that the hon. Member brought this forward in Committee. I suggested, however, that it was rather a matter to be dealt with in the Building Acts, and he withdrew it. He has now, I think, put his clause in a shape which is certainly better than it was when originally proposed. I have received some representations in regard to the clause since it has been on the Paper. It has been represented to me that, although the clause seems to be carefully safeguarded, it may in some cases make persons liable who are not in fault, and I am sure the hon. Member would be disposed to receive with favour any proposal which would make sure that the right man should be hit. My own attitude in regard to the proposal is a benevolent one, and I am disposed to accept the clause. Before the Bill goes to another place I will consider whether words cannot be inserted

  1603
  in order to prevent the wrong person from being charged.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, to leave out Sub-section (2), of Clause 6.—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to move my Amendment to Clause 16, providing that "the sanitary authority" and not "the county council," as proposed by the Bill, shall make bye-laws as to the prevention of nuisances. I am not going to draw any distinction between the London County Council and the Sanitary Authorities, who, to a great extent, are the Vestries and District Boards of the Metropolis. As a member of the County Council, I have no desire to limit unduly the functions of that body, but I think that these bye-laws could much better be drawn up by the different Vestries which have local knowledge of their respective districts. I have had the honour of being a member of a Vestry for 28 years, and during that time it has done most excellent work. I should be very sorry indeed to see any powers taken away from the Vestries and Local Boards and handed over to the London County Council. I think it will be admitted that the London County Council already has its hands very full. In view also of the creation of District Councils, I think it would be exceedingly unwise to take away any powers from the existing bodies which would naturally be transferred to the future bodies. We should all desire to see, if not the same class of men, a better class returned to the Vestries; and if you take away responsibilities from those bodies, you will certainly not induce the best men to come forward. The County Council would, of course, have to make bye-laws for the whole Metropolis, and it seems to me it would be exceedingly difficult to make any bye-laws which would be equally applicable
  1604
  and useful to a West End and an East End parish. The social aspects are entirely different in the two cases. I think the Sanitary Authorities in most instances, at all events in the Metropolis, have been freely trusted by the Local Government Board, and I think they may be trusted in the future.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 16, page 8, line 24, to omit "county council," and insert the words "sanitary authority."—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member, although not altogether on the grounds he has stated. I have a feeling that the subject-matter of this Bill might be much more effectively dealt with if we had constituted that system of Local Government which we all look forward to with some expectation, but, while I say that, I recognise that the public are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill for the most useful provisions it contains. The ground on which I support the Amendment is that, while I in no way reflect upon the County Council, I think we ought to give as much power as can safely be given in regard to the actual administration of local affairs to the representative body in charge of the district. I think it is impossible to expect men of position in the locality to assume the burden of taking part in local government unless you make their position one of responsibility, and unless they are to be freed from hindrance and hampering at every turn by the interference of outside parties. Therefore, I very cordially support this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: As one who supported heartily the Second Reading of this Bill, I join in the expression of the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to accepting this Amendment. I am certainly actuated by no jealousy of the County Council, having had too much municipal experience for any such feeling, but this matter of bye-laws is essentially one for the Local

  1605
  Authority. This provision in the Bill is really apiece of re-centralisation. Those who have to administer the bye-laws ought to have the right to make them. We expect from the right hon. Gentleman a scheme for the detailed government of the Metropolis, in the shape of a Bill for District Councils. I think one of the worst things that could happen would be either to stamp the character of the minor Local Governments in a manner that would be deterrent to the best men entering them, or to so limit their powers as to render these good men comparatively useless in the performance of their duties. In the case of Subsection (c), it may perhaps, and as a matter of compromise, be advisable that the power should be in the London County Council, and I make this suggestion because the subject referred to is marked by continuity and may effect several parishes. In the case of Sub-section E, the power is now in the hands of the Central Authority, and, though I think the local principle would apply, still, again as a matter of compromise, I would suggest that the power might reside where it is. But Sub-section (a), (b), (d) and (f), which deal with local matters, the Local Authority is the proper tribunal.
  EARL COMPTON: I am one of those who disagree with the arguments that have been brought forward in favour of this clause, and I am afraid I shall find myself in a minority. The point was thoroughly well threshed out in the Grand Committee. The last speaker brought forward there the same arguments, and made the same speech that we have just heard, only he made it several times instead of once. We fought against the opponents of the clause with the aid of the President of the Local Government Board, who was in favour of the clause as it stands, and who pointed out to the Committee the absolute necessity of uniformity in the bye-laws in London. He told us time after time that it was absurd to think that all the Vestries of London were against the clause as it stands. In every Division we won by very preponderant numbers, because the Government were on our side. I am afraid, from what I have heard, there has been a change of front on the part of those who are in charge of this Bill.
  1606
  We have heard of compromise. The compromise, I imagine, came originally from the right hon. Gentleman himself. It appears to me to be a compromise the effect of which will be to take away certain powers now possessed by the Central Authority, which represents the whole of London, and hand them over to District Councils or other Local Authorities. I do not think the hon. Member was present in the Grand Committee when we discussed Clause 16. If I remember rightly, he was suffering from influenza at the time, and I was unable to attend a later Sitting for the same unfortunate reason. We have not, so far as I am aware, yet had a hint of the intentions of the Government relative to this most important Amendment. Seeing that such enormous interests are involved, surely the Government ought to have put down some Amendments instead of leaving us in the dark as to what course they intend to take. Is it their intention in all clauses when the "county council" is named to substitute the words "sanitary authority"? I think we have good reason to complain of being left in the dark until the eleventh hour. We know, of course, that if the Government decide to accept any Amendment, they can command a majority. We shall be in a minority unless the Government stick to their guns. Having watched with the greatest interest the career of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, having looked upon him as one of the strongest men in the present Government, having had to thank him for the remedial measures he has already passed, and having done my best in the Grand Committee to help him forward with his Bill, I am sorry now to see him showing signs of weakness and of giving way on this most important point at the bidding of certain Members who represent the Vestries of London. Has he looked into the matter thoroughly? Can he tell us how the existing bye-laws will be affected? How will the bye-laws dealing with slaughterhouses be affected? In that case you will have a conflict of jurisdiction. In passing this Amendment we shall be going backward instead of forward. What we want to secure is uniformity from one end of London to the other; but by having a

  1607
  variety of bye-laws made by different authorities, we shall get nothing but confusion. I am not merely pleading as a member of the London County Council, to which body I may not soon belong, as I do not think it possible for a man to do his duty properly as a member of the London County Council and of this House also, but I do put this plea forward as an individual who lives in this City. Having made inquiry into the matter, and having seen how badly the Sanitary Laws have worked, I have come to the conclusion that nothing but uniformity of bye-laws will have any effect in remedying the evils under which we have for so long laboured. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication as to how far he intends to give way to the outcries which certain Vestries have made since this Bill passed through the Standing Committee. I hope that I may have taken too despondent a view of the position of affairs.
  MR. WHITMORE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the view taken by the hon. Member for Islington. I have an Amendment on the Paper which, if passed, would transfer to the Sanitary Authority the power of making all bye-laws; but perhaps the best way of dealing with the question is to give the County Council the power of making bye-laws for such matters as are really Metropolitan responsible. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, that the matters dealt with in Sub-sections C and E are Metropolitan, and can best be dealt with by the London County Council; but as to matters arising under other sub-sections, they are of a local nature, they vary in different districts, they require local knowledge in dealing with them, and consequently the framing of bye-laws respecting them should be left to the Local Authorities. Under these circumstances I shall not press the Amendment which stands in my name. I should like to say, in the way of friendly criticism of what has fallen from the noble Lord, that those who take the view of the matter embodied in this Amendment object to being described as representatives of the Vestries. We simply desire that the affairs of London shall be administered in the best possible way. For my part, I am convinced it is in the interest
  1608
  of the London County Council itself that we should not unnecessarily and gratuitously add to its many important functions duties which are not Metropolitan, and which could be far better dealt with by Local Sanitary Authorities. There are powers which we all earnestly desire to see conferred upon the London County Council, but is it wise to impose these sanitary duties upon that body, which the noble Lord admits finds great difficulty in discharging its present duties——
  *EARL COMPTON: I did not say that. I said it was difficult for a member of the London County Council to do duty also as a Member of Parliament.
  *MR. WHITMORE: I should like to see more men like the noble Lord sitting on the London County Council, and I would urge that we should not unnecessarily add to the duties of that body.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by the lecture of the noble Lord from giving way to the evident wish on all sides of the House. This Bill came before the Local Authorities of London somewhat suddenly, and has been pressed forward rather expeditiously, and I think the Sanitary Authorities have only just realised the propositions which are embodied in it. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of desiring to rush the Bill through, but I say that it was not until very recently the Sanitary Authorities of London had an opportunity of fully considering it. A good deal has been said or implied by the noble Lord, and it is also said by certain classes of people in the community as to the Sanitary Authorities having grossly neglected their duties.
  *EARL COMPTON: NO, no.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: The noble Lord is well aware that appeals are made to the Government to wipe some of the present Sanitary Authorities out of existence and to give the London County Council increased powers. Now, I venture to say that a large number of the Sanitary Authorities in London have done their duty, and the condition of the health of London is the strongest testimony of the way in which they have done their work, without any pressure from either the London County Council or its predecessor. I cannot admit to be reactionary any proposal to give the

  1609
  Sanitary Authorities of London reasonable control over sanitary matters in their own districts. Does the noble Lord mean to say that the Sanitary Authorities have exercised their powers unjustly.
  *EARL COMPTON: I said there was something retrogade in this Amendment.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: The noble Lord admits that he does not attend the meetings of the County Council so often as he wishes because of the pressure of his Parliamentary duties, and I can therefore well understand that be has somewhat misunderstood the powers which the London County Council possesses. I am not aware that it has at the present time any of the powers proposed to be given to it in this Bill. The proposal which the noble Lord advocates is to take away power from the Sanitary Authorities and to confer upon the County Council powers of sanitary control involved in the making of bye-laws which the County Council do not at present possess. The Bill as a whole, as a measure in the interest of the public health, is no doubt an excellent one, but there is one vice which runs through it and which I hope to see removed, and that is a desire to transfer from the Sanitary Authorities real control, and to enable the County Council to sit in judgment upon their actions, to minimise their efforts, and to destroy their usefulness. I have marked 56 places in the Bill in which the County Council is interpolated as exercising interference or control of various kinds over the Sanitary Authorities. I say that that interference is unnecessary. I understand that at an early period the right hon. Gentleman is to bring in his Bill creating District Councils who will have all the duties of the present Sanitary Authorities. I cannot see what object there can be in degrading the Sanitary Authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he is reported correctly, said himself that anything calculated to take away from the responsibilities and independence of the Vestries would have an injurious effect. He also said he hoped that when they came to deal with the question of District Councils it would be his duty to add to rather than diminish the duties of existing authorities. Surely, if that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, it is unreasonable by this Bill to deprive the Sanitary
  1610
  Authorities of powers they at present possess, and which they will only temporarily exercise until the new District Councils are brought into operation. I desire to see the London County Council discharging the larger duties which belong to it, and leaving to the local Authorities an independent control of their local affairs. I have in my hand communications from the Vestries of Paddington, Islington, and St. Pancras, protesting against the tendency of this Bill to lessen the status of the existing Local Authorities, and there is an equally strong feeling on this matter in other districts. In one of these documents it is pointed out that in the case of the particular parish with a population of 320,000, the Vestry has proved itself for years past capable of administering local affairs economically as well as efficiently, and to the satisfaction of the inhabitants, and yet this Bill would subject it to a control which the smallest municipal borough in the Kingdom would not submit to. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Vestries and District Boards strongly resent this interference. I hope this Bill will meet with favourable consideration, but I warn him that unless it is altered in some of its administrative details, and unless the Vestries retain full control over purely local matters, profound dissatisfaction will be created throughout London, and the work of parsing a District Councils Bill next Session will be made more difficult. I have never in this House made any attack on the London County Council. I have, on more than one occasion defended it, but I cannot help thinking that it already has more than enough purely local work to do, and that it is desirable to relieve it, as far as possible, of work which can be better done by Local Authorities.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think I shall best consult the convenience of the Committee by confining my remarks to the particular question before it, and I earnestly hope, when questions come up in connection with this Bill, that it will not be necessary to have a general dissertation on the merits and demerits of the County Council. No matter how well the Local Authorities perform their duty, there ought to be some means of insuring uniformity of administration,

  1611
  but it is not intended to interfere with their independence. It is perfectly true that in the Standing Committee I resisted an Amendment similar to the one now proposed. I think, however, that there is some misapprehension with regard to giving and taking away powers. In the Bill, as it stands now, there will be no taking away of powers either from one body or the other. There is only one body which has power to make bye-laws. No power exists in any Local Body—either the County Council or the Local Authority—to make bye-laws on the majority of the matters now proposed to be made the subject of bye-laws. Those matters are regulated by Statute, but the provisions are not in a convenient form, and it is quite evident that they have to do with matters which ought to be dealt with in a more elastic way. That being so, the Government naturally desired that the authority which had the supervision of the whole of London should make the bye-laws applicable to the whole of London. I acknowledge that these provisions have been resented by Local Authorities throughout London. This Bill is a very important one, and I think that few persons have quite realized the effect it will have on the public health of London. I feel sure that no one more than the noble Lord would have regretted the wrecking of the Bill because of a position taken up by the Government with reference to matters which are not absolutely essential. Such a result would have been looked upon as an unmitigated misfortune after the labour and trouble which have been gone through. I am sure, also, that the noble Lord will agree that, if by making certain concessions, not of an essential character, the Government are able to enlist the vestries on their side, instead of making them antagonists, with the object of securing the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, they will be doing a good work. I do not recede from the position taken up in the Grand Committee—namely, that it would be better to have absolute uniformity with regard to the whole of this matter throughout London, and that the central body is the authority to make the bye-laws. I do not think, however, that the point is so essential as to cause me to adhere at all hazards to the position
  1612
  I took up in the Grand Committee, though it may be said I am turning my back upon myself. I understand that my hon. Friend and those who agree with him in this Amendment recognise that there are two sets of those bye-laws which can properly be made by the Central Authority, and no one can doubt the capacity of the Local Authorities to make bye-laws with regard to the other matters. I shall endeavour to secure uniformity in some other way. The noble Lord knows that the bye-laws made by the Sanitary Authority have to receive the consent of the Local Government Board; and I shall consider it my duty to draw up model bye-laws for the guidance and assistance of the various Local Authorities throughout London. We may hope, therefore, that if the Local Authorities desire to co-operate with the Local Government Board practical uniformity will be secured in that way. I acknowledge that I am departing from the position I took up in the Grand Committee on this point; but I believe we shall thereby be enabled to smooth away a vast number of difficulties; to conciliate instead of to offend the Local Authorities, while inflicting no practical damage on the Bill.
  MR. J. STUART: It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty; at the same time, I deprecate such Second Heading speeches as we have heard upon this clause from hon. Friends on this side of the House. We are met here to complete, if we can, a measure which, taken as a whole, will be of great advantage to London. I have supported the position taken up by the Government in the Grand Committee with reference to this clause, and I cannot admit what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there are no powers at present with which this clause might interfere. Under the Act of 1888 the County Council of London is authorised to make bye-laws for the good health and government of the county, and for the prevention and suppression of any nuisances. But what it lacks is power to enforce those bye-laws. A good deal of the discussion which has arisen has shown the force of the contention that difficulties will arise in connection with the progress through Parliament of this Bill, because it precedes the formation of

  1613
  District Councils. It is obvious also that there has been in the minds of some hon. Members an anticipation of the date when District Councils will be established, and that we are not looking clearly at the situation as it exists at present. I believe that some of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties have in fact been created by himself, and I am astonished at the continuous and determined opposition waged against the Bill by some hon. Members on the Government side of the House—an opposition which endangers the passing of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had maintained his position the Bill might have been got through the House with little difficulty. I recognise the force of the reasons which have led to the right hon. Gentleman's yielding on this point, and that there is great doubt among vestry representatives and others as to whether all the subjects specified are fit for general and universal regulation; and I believe that those objections might be met by a much less drastic change than is at present suggested. I cannot admit that this is a centralising measure, nor that the municipalities in the country are in a position similar to Local Bodies in London. Municipalities represent units, and we maintain that London is a unit as a whole, and that the County Council is the representative of London in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that there may be some doubt as to the efficiency of the bye-laws made by Local Authorities. The proposal to issue model bye-laws is a good stop to take, but the right hon. Gentleman should remember that there is another difficulty beyond that. There is the point whether or not bye-laws will be made at all, and there ought to be inserted in the Bill some provision which will bring the Local Authorities to book and oblige them to make those bye-laws. The right hon. Gentleman should embody in the Bill a provision to this effect—that if any Sanitary Authority shall fail to make bye-laws which shall have received the approval of the Local Government Board before some fixed date, then the County Council shall have power to make such bye-laws. Unless there be some kind of regulation like this there will be districts of London in which the
  1614
  operation of the Act will be absolutely non-existent.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The point raised by the hon. Member is already provided for in Clause 99 of the Bill.
  MR. WEBSTER: I had intended to move an Amendment similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone. The representatives of the London constituencies on this side of the House have taken up this question in the interest of local self-government and of the people of London at large, believing that the public interest will be best served by the Local Authorities having ample powers to discharge those functions which properly come within their scope. It has been pointed out that the London County Council already has more work than it can do, and that being so, it would, as has already been said, be most unwise to needlessly thrust upon them additional duties which belong to and can be efficiently discharged by other Local Bodies. I myself saw the Agenda Paper of the County Council—28 closely printed pages—and after sitting five hours they had only got through four or five of those pages. For the reasons I have stated I strongly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Marylebone.
  *MR. LAWSON: I cannot assume the militant spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, or with the noble Lord the Member for Barnsley. I think the matter is purely a practical one affecting the future sanitary administration of London, and therefore bound up with the whole work of self-government. It is not a question concerning the self-esteem of the County Council or of the Local Bodies, but one which closely affects the social welfare of the people. It is from that point of view we should regard the matter, and I feel bound to say that I think the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is an improvement on the Bill. Though it should be borne in mind that it is a fault on the part of the Local Authorities that they have not carried out the existing law, yet I decline to discuss the point, because I do not believe those authorities will exist much longer. Still, I do not

  1615
  think that to decentralise the work of the vestries and to throw it now on the County Council would make the delegation of work to these future bodies—the District Councils—easier, and that is a point which should not be lost sight of. I repeat that the compromise of the right hon. Gentleman will meet the object in view in regard to bye-laws better than the Bill as it stands, and if the right hon. Gentleman avails himself of the powers which Clause 110 gives him he will be able to secure the uniformity which we all desire. I shall, therefore, in this matter support the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The County Council will be able to settle broad questions for the whole of the Metropolis, but they should not be troubled by details which could properly be left to the various localities. Too much of the time of the London County Council meetings is taken up by such matters. I am quite sure, too, that there would be jealousy on the part of the different localities if they were interfered with by the officialism of the Central Body. We want to secure the goodwill, not the hostility, of every Local Authority towards the Sanitary Law. I support the right hon. Gentleman, because I think the object we all have in view will be better carried out by the compromise he has suggested.
  *MR. DARLING: The right hon. Gentleman has devised an excellent compromise. Too long we have been troubled with the dignity of the Vestries as opposed to the susceptibilities of the County Council. But now both bodies are content. To the vestrymen the right hon. Gentleman attributes the dignified mission of dealing with "carrion" and with "offal," while to the County Councillor he concedes the removal of things "noxious" and "offensive,"—acting apparently in this on the well-known maxim that "Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat." The compromise satisfies, it would seem, the contending parties, so let them lie down together henceforth in peace.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I shall be glad to say a few words, not as Chairman of the London County Council, but as a resident of London, and as a London Member. Although I sympathise with
  1616
  my right hon. Friend, and recognise the importance of avoiding disputes with the different Local Authorities, still I regret that he has found himself obliged to give way to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras will allow me to observe that I have never said a Single word in depreciation of the vestries of London. I may say for my noble Friend, as well as for myself, and indeed, I believe I may speak for the County Council as a whole, that we gratefully recognise and appreciate the work which has been done for London by the Vestries. I do not think that that work has always been sufficiently appreciated. When we look at the health of London, we must, I think, admit that they have carried out their duties admirably. At the same time, I think it would be better that bye-laws should be made by a Central Authority for the whole of London. It may be urged that although uniformity is desirable, yet different bye-laws may be required for different parts of London. But I may point out that the London County Council need not of necessity make uniform bye-laws for the whole of London; they could vary them to meet the requirements of different localities. The hon. Member for St. Pancras asserted that some of the provisions in this clause were of a purely local character. That may be the case so far as Sub-section F is concerned, but as regards the other sub-sections, they cannot be said to be of a local character, because if the duties embodied in them are neglected in any part of the Metropolis, the city as a whole may suffer. I have in my hand an excellent article from the Lancet of the 18th April, which says:—
  "A little consideration will doubtless show that the course Mr. Ritchie has adopted is inevitable if London is to be properly governed. There is an absolute necessity that a central power should exist for the purposes of the sanitary requirements of London as a whole, and seeing that maladministration in one district in London may prejudicially affect the whole county, the right of intervention must be given to the Central Authority. Not long ago we commented on the activity of the Sanitary Authority of St. Olave's in stamping out an outbreak of typhus fever. If this outbreak had been less energetically dealt with other districts would probably have been affected, and, as a matter of fact, the disease did spread to the neighbouring district. It

  1617
  cannot be held that the administration of one district does not concern others. London, great as it is, is but one town."
  I cannot help thinking that this portion of the Bill is of a retrograde character. Still it is important we should pass the Bill, and although it may not be all that we desire, it will be for the advantage of the Metropolis. I do not wish, however, to exaggerate the importance of the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members. There are five provisions in this clause. One is a matter of very small importance, and I agree it had better be left in the hands of the District Board. Of the remaining four, I understand my hon. Friend to admit that two should be under the control of the London County Council. I confess that if subsection C and E are to be left under the control of that body I see no logical reason for omitting A and D. At the same time it must not be supposed that everything is going to be taken away from the London County Council. The provisions which are the most important in the interests of the health of the Metropolis will still be left in their hands. As Chairman of the Council, I will only add that we are most anxious to work cordially and harmoniously with the vestries. The London County Council do not, as alleged by the last speaker—and I think I may say the same for the vestries—wish to claim anything for themselves. They are not looking in any way to their own dignity and power, their one desire is to support the system which will best promote the health of London. One hon. Member has suggested that this is a matter of jealousy between the vestries and the London County Council. That is not the spirit in which we approach this matter. We desire to do that which is best for the Metropolis generally. I may, however, point out to the representatives of the vestries that the real power under the Amendment is after all not given to them, but to the Local Government Board.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I do not agree with this proposed change. I think it is a blow struck at the very heart of the Bill. I hold that the right hon. Gentleman has not successfully defended his change of front. He says he does not wish to run the risk of losing
  1618
  the Bill by insisting on this point. But is that a fair presentment of the case? It has been recognised from the first that Clause 16 was a vital and, perhaps, the most important part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he has been taken by surprise by the case which the vestries have put before him; for that case was fairly stated in the Committee with characteristic clearness and force by the hon. Member for South Islington and by the Member for Chelsea. How did the right hon. Gentleman then meet them? He said that Clause 16 referred to matters as to which it was essential there should be uniformity. That was of course a strong argument in favour of the clause as it stood. It is from that want of uniformity that London has for many years sadly suffered. I have been somewhat surprised by the tone adopted in this House with regard to the London vestries. There has been an almost unanimous chorus of praise, and I am as ready as anyone to do them full justice, but I am not disposed to be mealy - mouthed with regard to their shortcomings. It is notorious that there are good vestries, indifferent vestries, and a few deplorably bad vestries. The object of this Bill is to secure power to coerce the bad vestries. The right hon. Gentleman said it is to secure uniformity, and in that he is certainly opposed to the mover of this Amendment, who holds it is undesirable.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I said "practical uniformity."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I do not think that the addition of the epithet "practical" alters the case materially. There is still a radical difference between the two. I think we have reason to complain of the attitude now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He has shown himself singularly ungrateful. The records of the proceedings of the Grand Committee will show that in that Committee the political supporters of the right hon. Gentleman would, if they had had their will, have turned his Bill inside out. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was only saved from his friends by the interposition of the Liberal Members of the Committee. Now the right hon. Gentleman has run away from us, and left us in the lurch.

  1619
  No good purpose will be served by dividing the House, and I do not desire to do so: but if any other hon. Member insists upon a division I will support there the opinion I expressed in the Grand Committee.
  MR. KELLY: With regard to the position we took up in the Grand Committee, it is true that we never asked for more than the right hon. Gentleman conceded. We did not even ask for this clause to be struck out, although we were very much opposed to it. We said that there were matters as to which bye-laws could only be properly made by the Local Authorities, and that others ought to be made by the London County Council. Some of us have taken up a different position to-day. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Deptford, who was a bitter opponent of the Bill, has modified his views, and I wish to point out that so far from it being a fact that we, who were opposed to the Bill, would have turned it inside out, we were so anxious it should be passed that we allowed the discussion on it to be considerably curtailed, and we avoided moving many Amendments. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green has taken up an attitude different from that adopted by his colleagues in regard to the vestries. He said there were good as well as bad vestries, but some of his friends have used much stronger language in regard to those bodies. One of them said, "vestrydom is doomed," and the sentiment was loudly cheered by hon Members around him. I trust I may be allowed to explain that many of us thought that it would be a fatal mistake when we were about to establish District Councils, to restrict the duties and obligations now resting upon the vestries, because we hold that members of the County Councils would be drawn from the District Councils, and if we took away every vestige of authority from the latter, no one would care to serve upon them.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member opposite, and those who are acting with him, are deeply anxious to pass this Bill, but I challenge contradiction when I say that in Committee they placed an enormous number of Amendments on the Paper, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board got his main support
  1620
  from Liberal Members of the Committee. Now, I am anxious that when the new District Councils are constituted they shall have stronger powers than the vestries possess at the present moment. The charge is that those of us who support the clause in its original form desire to undermine the powers of the vestries. We deny that. What we say we desire to do is to place in the hands of some authority the power of drawing up a series of bye-laws which have never been in existence. We hold that London in regard to these matters must be dealt with as a whole, and therefore we want the bye-laws drawn up by a Central Authority. One of the chief evils from which London has suffered in the past has been the overlapping of authorities with regard to matters of a character general to the whole of London. I regret that hon. Members should have taken up so much time on a minor point. I do not believe in a centralising system. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board says he is going to take care to have a uniform system; that he is going to draw up model bye-laws for the whole of the vestries of London. That is not what we want; we require that they should be drawn up by a representative authority.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Although at present the Local Government Board has the power of drawing up model bye-laws for the whole of the country, the Sanitary Authorities are not bound slavishly to follow them. As a rule they are, however, only too glad to avail themselves of the suggestions of the Board.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: They may not have to adopt the exact words of the bye-laws, but they are bound to keep within the four corners of them, or else they are not likely to get official approval. I do hope that when we come to deal with the question of District Councils the right hon. Gentlemen will adopt broader views on this point.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am wholly opposed to centralisation on philosophic grounds. It seems to me that in this matter in London we have a terrible example in the position of the School Board, which already imposes a shilling rate, and we do not know how much its expenditure will increase. I

  1621
  am very much in favour of reasonable decentralisation. I think the County Council should deal with general questions and Local Authorities with local questions. The Central Authority should not be overburdened, and in spite of the explanations of the President of the Local Government Board, I think the change he is making is an illusory change. My great objection to this Bill is the excessive power given to the Local Government Board. I have not that extreme jealousy of officialism which many hon. Members have, but I think great danger may arise from the Local Government Board emasculating local government.
  MR. CREMER: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the extraordinary statements of the Member for North St. Pancras. The hon. Member said the Bill has been sprung upon the House and the country by surprise. This Bill has been before us nearly four months.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I did not say it was sprung upon the House by surprise; I said it had been proceeded with very expeditiously, and that the Local Authorities had only recently had an opportunity of considering its effect and expressing an opinion on it.
  MR. CREMER: Seeing that the Bill has been before the House for four months, I think there has been full time for its mature consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board certainly cannot be charged with having attempted to rush the Bill through the House. The Committee upstairs sat for several weeks, and extraordinary tactics were resorted to by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the purpose of wrecking this very useful measure. They crowded the Paper with Amendments; their intense hatred of the Bill was the alpha and omega of their action, and had it not been for the persistent support given to the right hon. Gentleman by hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, the Bill would have been wrecked. And yet after having been honourably and thoroughly beaten upstairs hon. Gentlemen opposite are still dissatisfied. They induced the right hon. Gentleman to delay the final stage so that they might put the vestries in motion against the Bill.
  MR. WEBSTER: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment before the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The point at issue is being lost sight of. The question is, shall the County Council be the authority to make the bye-laws?
  MR. CREMER: I was pointing out that we are now considering the very proposal on which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so fairly beaten upstairs. It is true the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated just now that within the last two or three weeks he has received communications in which the various Local Authorities in London resent the power which it is proposed by the Bill to confer on the London County Council. Of course we quite understood when the right hon. Gentleman assented to the adjournment of this question that he would receive such communication from the Local Authorities. It is a very dangerous thing to give to the Local Sanitary Authorities the power which it is proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to hand over to them. Those hon. Members who have been members of Vestries know that many members of those bodies are owners of small house property, and that these gentlemen manage, by hook or by crook, to get elected by the Vestries to the Sanitary Boards, with the result that the sanitary laws are scarcely ever enforced, or if they are enforced, it is in a very inefficient manner. These persons naturally desire to cling to the authority they have wielded in the past for their own selfish purposes. The right hon. Gentleman proposed very properly to take the power out of their hands, and to place it in the hands of the County Council. At last the right hon. Gentleman has thought it advisable to change his front on the subject. It is now proposed that the Local Government Board shall have the power to see that the sanitary laws and regulations are properly enforced. If hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer the authority of the Local Government Board in preference to that of the County Council of London—the one body of which they stand most in dread—I shall offer no objection. Personally, I shall not think it worth while to offer any further opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member for Marylebone, because I am satisfied that the victory

  1623
  the hon. Gentleman and his friends have gained is of the most shadowy character imaginable.
  MR. RITCHIE: May I be permitted to appeal to the House to come to a decision on this point. We have debated this Amendment for a very considerable time, and I assure hon. Gentlemen who desire this Bill to pass they will seriously endanger the probability of its doing so if they debate Amendments at very great length.
  MR. CAUSTON: Before we come to a decision on this Amendment I think we are entitled to a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he means to stand by Clauses 98 and 99, because otherwise it will be absolutely necessary for us to press the point suggested by the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart).
  *MR. T. H. BOLTOIT: I rise to order. If there is to be any reference to Clauses 98 and 99 some of us will also want to say something about them.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'Sanitary Authority' be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  Amendments made—
  Clause 16, page 8, line 33, leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  Clause 16, page 9, line 1, leave out Sub-section (e).—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  MR. KELLY: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gainsford Bruce). It seems to me it is obviously desirable that the Local Authorities should be able, with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, to make bye-laws as to the sufficiency of the space about buildings to be constructed after the passing of this Act so as to secure a free circulation of air and proper ventilation. I am quite aware the President of the Local Government Board will say that this is not the place in which this Amendment should be made. He will say he proposes to bring in a Bill to deal with this matter properly and fully, but I put it to him that no harm can be done by the matter being dealt with now. By this Amendment we shall be able to prevent the erection of buildings which are insanitary in a most important particular.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 7, after the word "dwelling-houses," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words "(g.) As to the sufficiency of the space a bout buildings to be constructed after the passing of this Act to secure a free circulation of air, and with respect to the ventilation of such buildings."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: This provision is the law in London at the present time, and is administered by the London County Council: it is included in the Building Acts. I think it would be manifestly wrong to insert in this Bill a provision which is strictly applicable to the Building Acts.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: There is no doubt that the law in regard to the ventilation of buildings is very inefficiently executed. I have noticed great piles of buildings springing up a great deal too near one another, and that in parts of London where there is no excuse for overcrowding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. J. STUART: I think the Amendment I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman would come in here. It is not covered by Clause 99, and contemplates a much more speedy action than that clause does. Under Clause 99, in case of default by a local body, an appeal is to be made to the Local Government Board, and a series of steps have to be taken. No date is fixed. I propose that the date should be fixed by the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed, after the Amendment last proposed, to insert the words—
  "Provided, that if any Sanitary Authority shall fail to make bye-laws under this clause and to obtain the approval of the Local Government Board for these bye-laws before a date to be fixed by the Local Government Board, the County Council shall have power to make such bye-laws."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I shall be glad to consider before the Bill reaches another place whether some time should not be fixed, but when we have in another clause provision for neglect by a Local Authority to fulfil its duties and obligations, I strongly deprecate our dealing with those

  1625
  duties here in a piece-meal and separate manner.
  MR. J. STUART: I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that in another place he will deal with the date in respect to the bye-laws. I withdraw the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to, in Clause 16, page 9, after line 7, to insert—
  "The County Council shall make bye-laws—

  (a) for prescribing the times for the removal or carriage by road or water of any fœceal or offensive or noxious matter or liquid in or through London, and providing that the carriage or vessel used therefor shall be properly constructed and covered so as to prevent the escape of any such matter or liquid, and as to prevent any nuisance arising therefrom; and

  (b) as to the closing and filling up of cesspools and privies, and as to the removing and disposal of refuse, and as to the duties of the occupier of any premises in connection with house refuse, so as to facilitate the removal of it by the scavengers of the sanitary authority."—(Mr. Boulnois.)

  Amendment moved, in Clause 19, page 10, line 9, after "cattle," to insert "or horses."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Surely these words are quite unnecessary.
  *MR. J. STUART: The matter has been looked into by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and the conclusion arrived at is that the words are necessary.
  *MR. RITCHIE: "Knacker" would not apply to the case of horses killed for food.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to, Clause 20, page 11, line 33, after "cattle," insert "or horses."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  MR. KELLY: I bog to move in Clause 20 (prohibition and regulation of offensive trades), page 11, line 7, to insert an Amendment, the object of which is to enable a person who holds a licence for a slaughter house for example, and who may feel aggrieved by any proposed bye-law, to be heard in support of his objection before the Court of Quarter Sessions. I do not for a moment dispute the right of the County Council to refuse to licence a slaughter house. We
  1626
  think they ought to have the power, but what we say is that where there has been a licence granted, and there is a refusal to renew that licence, there ought to be an appeal. We do not ask for an appeal against a refusal to grant a licence, but we do think there ought to be an appeal against a refusal to renew a licence. The matter is a very simple one, therefore, I will do no more than merely propose this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 7, after the word "who," to insert the words "after hearing him in support of his objection."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to accept the Amendment. It is a matter of consequence to the person concerned that there should be an appeal. I do not, however, consider the Quarter Sessions the best authority to deal with the matter, and I should prefer to see the appeal given to the County Council.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I propose to insert at the end of the line a sub-section which will carry out the object my hon. Friend has in view. The sub-section is to the effect that where the Committee of the County Council determine to refuse or recommend the County Council to refuse the renewal of a licence under this section, the applicant, who may within seven days apply to the County Council to be heard, shall be heard against such refusal.
  MR. KELLY: I think the right hon. Gentleman's proposal should be accepted, but at the same time I regret that the Amendment was not put clown on the Paper some time ago.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Another Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, after line 26, to insert the words "Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the County Council to renew a licence under this section may appeal in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 20, page 12, insert the following sub-section:—"Where a committee of the county council determine to refuse or recommend the county council to refuse a renewal of any licence under this section the county council shall on written application made within seven days after such determination is made known to the applicant hear the applicant against such refusal."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: The words should be "Where a special Committee," &c., for the County Council appoints a Committee to consider these matters.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I will have the matter carefully looked into.
  MR. DARLING: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that in the Public Health Amendment Act, 1890, Section 70, there is not power of appeal from the Local Authority in matters of this kind to the Quarter Sessions, which Act does not apply to London? I think the procedure should be the same in London as in the country. As the appeal in the country is from the Local Authority to the Quarter Sessions, why should it not be the same in London?
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: From a general experience of this kind of appeal outside the Metropolis, I can say that it is not satisfactory, and I most say I should be sorry to see the decisions of the great County Council of London subject to appeal to the Quarter Sessions. It would be unworthy and a retrograde step in the matter of local self-government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WHITMORE: I now move the Amendment standing next in my name. It is quite true that this question came before the Grand Committee, and that there was some discussion on the matter, but hon. Members will agree with me that the matter on that occasion was allowed to be decided by default. The effect of my Amendment, if carried, would be to restore the Bill to its original shape, and in the matter of the cleansing of the footways re-impose the liability upon the occupier instead of placing the obligation upon the Sanitary Authority. The law as it stands now is not difficult to carry out. My impression is that if we throw
  1628
  the liability on the Local Authority, while the footways in the richer districts and the more prominent thoroughfares will be attended to, those in the poorer districts and the back streets will be neglected. Besides, the change will throw a very large new burden on the rates. The surveyor in the parish of Chelsea tells me that he will have to ask for a further vote of £5,000 in consequence. I do not object to an increase of the rates when it is really required for sanitary purposes, but I think we should not throw a heavy burden on the rates merely for a theoretic and ideal comfort, and that we should be careful not to produce a reaction against this health legislation by combining with it unnecessary additions to the objects of local expenditure.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, at commencement of Clause 28, to insert the words—
  "(1.) The occupier or, where the premises are unoccupied or are a house let in separate apartments, the owner of any premises in any street or public place shall keep the footways and watercourses adjoining the premises sufficiently swept and cleansed and free from snow, ice, dirt, or any other accumulation, and, in doing so, shall conform to the bye-laws under this Act.
  "(2.) If the occupier or owner of any premises, as the case may be, fails at any time to comply with this section, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for every such failure, and to pay any cests incurred by the Sanitary Authority in doing the work which he has so failed to do."—(Mr. Whitmore.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. RUSSELL: Representations which have reached me from the Local Authorities of the district I represent certainly induce me to support the principle of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Within the bounds of the district of the Hackney District Board there are no less than 200 miles of footpaths. The duty of keeping these footpaths clean is not to individual occupiers of individual houses a very serious burden; but, undoubtedly, this duty, if cast upon the Local Authority, would involve a very considerable increase in local expenditure, and a duty which at particular times, as I am informed, they would be unable to perform—I mean upon the occasion of a heavy snowfall. The duty could only be performed on such occasions

  1629
  at an enormous cost, and even then it would occupy a long time. But by the practice hitherto followed, the task of clearing the footways can be carried out with ease. I think the burden may still be left on the occupier, so far as the footways are concerned, and it is undesirable to throw the burden on the rates.
  MR. RITCHIE: At any rate, the attitude I take up on this point will not lay me open to any reproach of inconsistency from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because in Grand Committee, as hon. Members know, I was strongly opposed to the striking out of the provision which my hon. Friend now proposes to restore. I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, and it was my argument in Committee that to throw this burden on the authorities would entail an enormous cost upon the Local Authorities. With any amount of additional expense it would hardly be possible in times of pressure for the authorities to fulfil this duty. If this duty is cast on the Vestry the dwellers in the back streets will suffer, because the whole attention of the authorities will be concentrated upon the main thoroughfares, and the unfortunate occupiers in the back streets will be in the position that they are not to clear their footpaths for themselves, nor can they have the work done for them. This was my view in Committee, and is my view still, and so I support the proposal of my hon. Friend to restore the clause to its original form.
  MR. WEBSTER: I support the clause as it at present stands, and which represents the conclusion we arrived at after thoroughly discussing the point in Committee. We considered the change desirable because all the work of clearing the footways after a snowfall is now discharged in a perfunctory way by the inhabitants, and we believe it would be well and cheaply done by the Local Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea states that it would cost the Chelsea Board another £5,000 a year to clear the footways; and this estimate, I suppose, includes not only the clearing away of snow, but the cleansing of the footways from mud all the year round. It may be perhaps the case that the wide thoroughfares
  1630
  will have the first attention, but if the bye-streets are neglected it will be for the inhabitants to complain to the Local Sanitary Authority and to see that the work of cleansing for which they pay is properly carried out. It will be a great benefit to the poorer class of inhabitants who have to traverse the streets early in the morning on their way to places of business to be able to do this without the mud and wet on boots and dress which now they have to put up with. No difficulty is found in the authorities cleansing the streets of Paris, and in New York the "side walks," as they are called, are cleaned in the same way as the roadways. Equally well can the work be done in London. When it is urged that sufficient men cannot be found for the work, I doubt it, and remember that at the time when there is an exceptionally heavy fall of snow in London, there are usually more than the ordinary number of men out of employment, and these would be only too glad to find temporary employment under the authorities, instead of as now, cadging up and down the streets for such odd jobs as individual occupiers will give them. The occupier who pays one of these men to clear his section of the footway probably pays more for the clearing away of the snow than he will have to pay under a rate for the cleansing all the year round. Under the present state of things some householders clear their house fronts, and others do not, so that you find constant intervals of slush or slippery surfaces. I think the estimate for the cost suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, 2d. in the £61, is somewhat high, and I believe it could be done in St. George's, Hanover Square, at a much lower rate, but it may be the management is more economical there. The great benefit would be to those of the poorer classes who have to walk the streets, and the work can, I am sure, easily be done by the authorities. It is an old idea that such duties rest with individual inhabitants. At one time, they had the duty of lighting and watching the thoroughfares. The authorities cleanse the roadways, why not the footpaths? The clause in the Bill is a most useful one.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I am somewhat surprised

  1631
  to find the hon. Gentleman speak so lightly of an increase of 2d. in the rates, when we hear from him so much of the extravagance at the London County Council in having raised the rates ½d. But I support the Amendment because I believe that the streets will be better and more quickly cleared if we keep the law as it stands and adopt the Amendment. When we have a sudden and heavy fall of snow the Vestry will require some time for the organisation of a staff to clear it away, and meanwhile there is all the inconvenience until the work can be done, whereas now every man sets to work, or ought to do so, to clear his own frontage at once.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I am disposed to question the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board even in regard to this point. It is quite true that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman intimated his doubts as to the propriety of the Amendment then proposed, but the record of proceedings shows that he actually allowed the clause to be struck out of the Bill without a division.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is quite true I did not divide, but I said "No." I took the voices of the Committee.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Well, that strengthens our position; it shows that the voices of the Committee were so overwhelmingly in favour of striking out the provision that the right hon. Gentleman had not courage to challenge a division, but now, emboldened by the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, he adopts a much more courageous attitude. Every unbiassed person must admit that something ought to be done to improve the insanitary condition of our London footways. Speaking generally, the condition of our roadways in London is a model for all great cities. ["No, no!"] Such is my impression, speaking generally. But the condition of the footways is disgraceful, and this arises from the duty of cleansing them never having been formally laid upon the Local Authorities. The question now divides itself into two parts—the duty of cleansing from dirt under normal conditions, and the duty of clearing away a heavy fall of snow. Now, as regards the first set of conditions, the ordinary cleansing, I believe the vestries are almost unanimously in
  1632
  favour of undertaking the duty, but a heavy snowfall in London introduces a different set of considerations. I think, upon the whole, the balance of argument is strongly in favour of taking the burden off the shoulders of the individual occupiers and laying it upon the Local Authority. In the first place, I must traverse the statement that there is not now any burden on the occupier; there is such a burden and often it is a serious one. At the time of a great snow fall men go about professing to clear the footway, and if they are given the job to do they do it very badly. The present arrangement is akin to a system of blackmailing the occupier, and if he will not submit to that indignity, the only alternative is for some member of the household to undertake the work, and in middle class families this usually falls to the maid servant, work she should not be called upon to do. [An hon. MEMBER: The master of the house.] I do not find there is usually that chivalrous disposition to relieve the girl from the duty. Now, as to the question of practicability, I think the observations of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) who has had experience as a member of a London vestry ought to have weight with the House. I have not experience to enable me to give a similar undertaking; but he pledged himself that it is perfectly practicable for the Local Authorities to undertake the duty, and as the Local Authorities in the Metropolis have now the duty of cleaning the roadways, to include the footways is but a small additional work. I shall, therefore, if a division is insisted upon, vote in favour of keeping the clause as it left the Committee.
  SIR J. COLOMB&c.): My personal experience is against the arguments of the hon. Member for St. Pancras. If you pass along Victoria Street you will find roadway and footways in good order, but turning to the smaller streets to the south of Victoria Street and you will find that while the footways are clean the roadways are littered with rubbish, garbage, and decaying matter. Now, it is the duty of occupiers in the existing state of the law to clean the footways, and they are clean; it is the duty of the vestry or the Local Board to clear the

  1633
  roadways in the poor districts, and they do not do it; so that I venture to think that with an increase of rates under this clause you will only have the footways in poor districts in the condition in which the roadways are now. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
  MR. LAWSON: The arguments on either side are well balanced; the disadvantages of either course are almost equal. I do not agree that the condition of the roads in the Metropolis is a model to other cities. I am quite aware that in regard to paving they are better than the roads in such a city as Now York, but anyone who had experience of London last winter must admit that nothing could be worse than the state of the roads over almost the whole of London. I believe the City was an exception. Through the length and breadth of London practically nothing was done to clear the streets of the snow drifts, and for a long time locomotion was impossible. Under such circumstances, I fancy the clause as it stands will be a counsel of perfection; it will not be acted upon or carried into effect. I very much doubt if, with all the expense involved of setting the unemployed at work, the vestries could do the work. Still, I do not feel inclined to vote against the provision in the Bill. Though I do not think the slate of things will be much better than the present, I do not think it can be worse.
  MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: It may not be out of place to give an illustration from what is done in a provincial town. In Birmingham, in order to secure the footways being kept clear from snow, as winter approaches notices are posted and circulated among the inhabitants reminding occupiers of their duty to promptly sweep the footways after a fall of snow. The hon. Member for St. Pancras says this is imperfectly performed, but we find in Birmingham that the pathways are cleared early in the day, if not by 9 o'clock, by which time under the bye-laws the night fall of snow should be cleared. It is admitted that in London the Vestries do not effectually and promptly clear the roadways, and how, then, can it be anticipated they will perform the duty of sweeping the footways better than the duty is done at present? The hon. Member says
  1634
  that the extra work can be supplied by the numbers of men thrown out of their ordinary employment by the severity of the weather, but such labour will have to be organised and superintended. Many of the men will be unfitted for the work required, and an immense number of brooms and shovels will have to be kept in store or suddenly provided; whereas now every occupier is responsible for clearing the space in front of his own house, and the work is done, or the occupier is prosecuted for neglect of the duty. I am sure, from experience in Birmingham, that it will be impossible for the authorities to clear the paths so expeditiously as when the duty is imposed on the occupiers and enforced by the Sanitary Authority.
  *SIR GUYER HUNTER: I have not heard a single argument which should induce us to alter the decision arrived at in Committee. It has been stated by several hon. Members that Vestries have been in the habit of neglecting the duty of removing refuse from the roads, and they have argued. How, then, will it be possible for them to discharge this additional duty? But you find the Bill provides that the Sanitary Authority is to be mulcted in fines for neglect of duty. I hope there will be no attempt to relieve the authority from the duty that properly belongs to them, and that the penalty against neglect of duty will be enforced. I shall support the clause as it stands.
  MR. CREMER: In theory I am in favour of throwing the responsibility upon the occupier, but I find, after 30 years' experience as a London resident, that it does not work out well in practice. For many years in the street in which I live, winter after winter I have turned out and shovelled away the snow from my house front, and a few other residents in the street have done the same thing. But 95 per cent. of the occupiers do nothing of the kind, and the result is, though a few of us try to keep the footways clear, in half-an-hour our efforts are rendered fruitless, and the footway is as bad as before we made the attempt. Not one of the occupiers who did not perform their duty was ever fined for his neglect. Can any Member of the House charge his memory with any instance in which an occupier

  1635
  was summoned and fined for neglecting to keep his house frontage clear of snow? I have read of two or three instances, but they are exceedingly rare. The state of things in the Metropolis is disgraceful and injurious to the health of the people, especially those of the poorer classes, men and women who have to walk through the streets ill-shod, and pass their long hours of employment with feet cold and wet. This Amendment proposes to increase the duty now imposed on the occupiers, and which they do not perform, for it proposes that they shall not only sweep and keep clean the footways, but the "watercourses," so that we shall have to descend not only to the pavement, but to the gutters. As if it has been found impracticable to enforce the lighter duties imposed by the existing law, I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman it will be impossible to insist upon occupiers keeping clear the watercourses and gullies. It is a much easier thing to inflict a fine upon one than upon a hundred, and if we impose this duty on the Local Authority and the duty is neglected we shall know who to hang. It is difficult to enforce the law now, but under the Bill there will be no doubt about the duty and the penalty, and if there is a neglect of duty after one fall of snow it will not be repeated when the next fall comes.
  MR. C. W. RADCLIFFE COOKE: If the hon. Member reads Sub-section 2 of the clause with the Amendment proposed, moved by my hon. Friend, he will see that the performance of the duty remains with the occupier or owner of cleansing the footways, and there is the additional guarantee that the work shall be done because it will be enacted that the Sanitary Authority shall see that the occupiers do their duty.
  MR. CREMER: That is no new proposal. That is the existing law never enforced.
  MR. C. W. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Yes, but if the occupier does not do the duty the Sanitary Authority will have to do it themselves, in default of which they are subject to fine; therefore, by the sub-section we have the double guarantee that the footways will be kept clear.
  COLONEL HUGHES: A fall of snow is a small matter for the House to trouble itself with, but it is an important matter for London. We know very well that if snow is not removed shortly after its fall it is soon troddendown hard, and the difficulty of removing it is doubled. If he sets to work at once in the morning the occupier can clear away with a broom in a few minutes the snow fallen in the night; the whole thing is soon done by each occupier undertaking his share of the work. But leave the snow for a few hours, and it becomes hard work for all the parish men with shovels and pickaxes to remove the hard surface. I have had experience of Vestry work for 30 years, and I say put the clause in an Act of Parliament and enforce it with fines as you like, the Vestry cannot carry out the work as-effectually as the occupiers can. They will require large gangs of men, and these men will require supervision, because there will among them be a continual disposition to retire for refreshment to the public houses, and there must be an enormous supply of brooms and shovels. The only other way would be to insist upon these people assembling at the sound of the bugle to clear the streets. Even that would be a difficult system to carry out, as many of them would have something else to do, and would be otherwise engaged when the call came. At any rate, the people of London have got used to doing this work. They know they have to do it, and that if they neglect it they will be summoned and will have to pay the parish for doing it. Why should we abolish the present system and attempt to impose the duty of clearing the footways on the Local Authority, who will be engaged in driving the snow plough and getting the main thoroughfares clear of traffic after a fall of snow?
  MR. BARTLEY: It seems to me that there has been a very remarkable change in the opinion of Members since we considered this point in Committee upstairs, and I think a great deal of complication has arisen from mixing up snow with other matters. Whatever we may think of the liability of the Local Authority to clear away snow, it is impossible for them suddenly to sweep away a large fall of snow, such as one of six inches in London, for such a fall would

  1637
  mean 25,000,000 cartloads. It would be impossible for any Local Authority to clear away such a quantity as that in 24 hours, or even two or three days. The object of this clause is to provide that the ratepayers shall keep the pavements clean. Now, one hon. Member has referred to Victoria Street as being kept so well and clean. He does not live there and I do, and I must say that the pavement in that street is practically never cleansed. I see the same pieces of filth on the pavement day after day, and they only disappear because Providence has ordained that occasionally we should have a heavy shower of rain, which does the cleaning. I say that the ordinary cleaning of the pavements ought to be undertaken by the Parish Authorities. I am of opinion that a special provision should be made for snow, and that we ought not to pass a law as regards the immediate removal of snow which no Vestry and no Local Authority can carry into effect.
  MR. CAUSTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to carry out the practical suggestion of the hon. Member who last spoke. We shall all like to see snow removed from the pavements as well as dirt, but we know it is impossible to remove large quantities of snow with anything like expedition. Seeing, however, that the clause was passed in Committee without a Division, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board assented to it—his silence gave consent——
  *MR. RITCHIE: I was not silent.
  *MR. CAUSTON: Unfortunately, there is no record kept of what goes on in the Grand Committee, and, therefore, no means of knowing what he said. I think, however, that we should not reverse the decision of the Grand Committee. The poor people of London will not be injured by it. The cost to them in rates would not be so great as the cost involved in loss of time, supposing they had to cleanse the pavements themselves. Rich people are able to cleanse the footways, for they can hire servants to do it. Poor people cannot, and I should be sorry for the House to allow this opportunity of effecting a great good in the interests of the poor to pass away. If the Local Authorities find it difficult to
  1638
  remove the snow from the footways in time of snowy weather they can have recourse to the services of the unemployed. The hon. Member for Woolwich, who is a representative—and no doubt a very able representative—of a Vestry, says there would be no difficulty in dealing with a fresh downfall of snow in finding work for the unemployed. I am sure that the best people to deal with the unemployed would be the Local Authorities. They would be better able to concentrate work of this kind, and it would be a boon to the public for the Local Authorities to give work to the unemployed, and so prevent them going round levying blackmail from the householders.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: There-seems to me to be considerable difficulty in deciding whether to vote for the clause or the Amendment. The Amendment proposes to require the occupiers of houses to cleanse the pavements, or, in cases where houses are let in tenements or unlet, to require the owners to do the work, when, of course, the duty would devolve upon the agents or persons in charge. Well, is it proposed that landlords' agents are to be fined 40s. for neglecting to visit unoccupied houses or houses let out and remove the snow or dirt on the pavements? There would be no difficulty probably in Victoria Street or in Regent Street; but when you come to deal with hundreds of miles of foot pavements and streets only partially finished, in suburban neighbourhoods especially, the matter becomes very serious. I feel a good deal of hesitation in voting for the Amendment. But, on the other hand, the Amendment does fix the liability somewhere, whereas the clause itself is so vague that there is no doubt it never will be enforced. It says the cleansing shall be done "so far as is reasonably practicable," and I would ask any lawyer in the House what chance there would be of getting a conviction against a Local Authority under such a provision unless the very strongest case were made out? I am afraid that the clause would not amount to much more than good advice to the Vestries. At present the Local Authorities do their best to remove snow from the thorough fares, and it seems to me that they generally succeed in removing it in reasonable time.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: To my mind it is a great mistake to treat the "question, as though the only difficulty were the removal of snow from the footways. One day in the year we may have snow, but there are hundreds of days in the year when we have only to deal with ordinary wet. [Cries of "Divide!"] I agree with hon. Members who say that practically you cannot expect the Vestries to clear away a great snow fall; but, on the other hand, everyone must see that it would mean an enormous waste of power to require every householder to keep clean the pavement in front of his house, whereas it would be but a small addition to the work of the Vestry to require them to sweep the footways when they are sweeping the roads. [Cries of "Divide!"] I would, therefore, move to amend the Amendment by omitting after "ice" the words "dirt and other accumulation."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "dirt or any other accumulation."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'dirt, or any other accumulation,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. KELLY (who was received with cries of "Divide!"): The House should remember that the object of this Amendment is to put us back where we were before the clause was amended in the Select Committee. I would point out, also, that the clause does not require the owner, or agent of the owner, to clear away dirt or accumulations from the front of an unlet house. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London spoke of it being impossible for the Local Authority to clear the pavements after a heavy snowstorm. I could not help asking myself at the time whether London is not the town of all others in Europe where there is the least snow. I have been in Berlin in the winter, and have seen such snowstorms there as we never hear of here. But is the occupier in Berlin bound to clear away the snow? Is the occupier in Vienna bound to do so? I should be surprised to hear that he is. As a matter of fact, in the great cities of the Continent, where they have to cope with snowstorms compared with which the snow which falls in London is insignificant, the duty of clearing the streets and
  1640
  footways is most properly cast on the Local Authority. In London the Vestries clear the roads—why not the footways? I find it impossible to understand the statement that in Chelsea, if the Vestry are compelled to clear the footpaths, it will mean an increase of 2d. in the rates. In any case there can be no more costly system than the present one, and no more inefficient one, because, notwithstanding the regulations, the snow remains on the footways wherever there is a church, a chapel, or an empty house.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will have had sufficient experience of the results of throwing over decisions arrived at by the Committee upstairs. This matter was well threshed out upstairs; indeed, I do not think a single argument that has been used to-night was not advanced and dealt with before the Grand Committee. It is not difficult to draw the line from their speeches between those hon. Members who have to walk through the streets and those who enjoy the privilege of riding. Those who do not have to trouble the streets much themselves are not aware of the inconvenience suffered by hundreds of thousands of people who have to use the streets. The hon. Member for Chelsea thinks we should go back to the old system of cleaning the footways; but that system has been tried and has failed, not only during snowy weather but at other times. As to fining, I should like to see the authority that would fine people, street after street, for not clearing the footway opposite their houses. The Local Authority sweeps the roads, why should they not finish the work and do the footways also? Some of the Vestries in the course of last winter showed capacity in dealing with the heavy snowstorms. When coming to my office in the mornings at that time I knew directly, by the state of the streets, when I was passing the boundaries of one Vestry and entering those of another. If we want clean streets, we should support the Committee in the decision it arrived at after considerable deliberation.
  MR. ISAACS: It is my intention to support the conclusion arrived at by the Committee upstairs—to support the clause, which throws on the Local Authority the duty of cleansing the

  1641
  streets in all seasons of the year. In Continental cities no difficulty is experienced in cleaning the footways. The footways are first cleansed, and after they are attended to the roadways are taken in hand, and the great lines of communication are made free for traffic. But the reason I support the clause is because in London it does not happen that we have a fall of snow every day or every week. It frequently happens that there is not a fall of snow during an entire year, but nearly every week it happens that the footways are exceedingly dirty and exceedingly uncomfortable to pedestrians, and I hold that it should be the duty of the Local Authority to render the footways as clean as possible. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that he withdraw his Amendment until the original Amendment is dealt with in its entirety.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have no middle course, it would seem, between the two proposals before the House; therefore I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  (7.54.) The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 56.—(Div. List, No. 305.)
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I rise to move the omission of Sub-section 2 of Clause 28. I do not like to see an Act of Parliament imposing heavy penalties, which either mean a serious responsibility and a good deal of litigation, or nothing at all. If litigation and serious responsibility are meant, then I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he puts this clause into the Bill. If it means nothing at all, then it is very undesirable that it should appear in an Act of Parliament. Already the Sanitary Authorities of London feel rather sore about many of the provisions, and this one would appear unnecessarily offensive. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman either to modify or exclude this clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 33, to leave out sub-section (2) of Clause 28.—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I would remind the hon. Member that the House has just decided that the occupier, who is now under a penalty of 40s., shall be relieved of that responsibility. Yet the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to say that the Local Authority, on whom the responsibility is cast, may neglect that responsibility with impunity. I am not concerned to insist on the amount of the penalty as long as the principle is vindicated, and therefore I will meet the hon. Gentleman by substituting £20 for £50.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Though the right hon. Gentleman does not go as far as I could wish, yet I accept the concession he has offered, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment made.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to move, Clause 29, leave out sub-section (1b). In this case, I would point out that the great difficulty is not that the authorities do not send about their carts to get the refuse, but that the householders forget to put up the notices in their windows, and in some cases refuse to have the refuse removed because it is not convenient. It is rather hard on the Local Authorities that they should be fined after having made all arrangements for the removal of the dust, and are prevented by the parties concerned. I do not see why a Local Authority, any more than the Government, should be fined if it fails to do its duty. I do not think the Government ought to insist on this clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 6, to leave out from the word "where," to the word "holidays," in line 15, both inclusive.—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I hope the House will adhere to the Bill as it stands. The hon. Gentleman says the refuse is not cleared away because the people do not put up a notice. I maintain that they ought not to be required to put up a notice at all. Surely it is no hardship upon the Sanitary Authority that they should be called upon to discharge this duty in a proper way. They can surely arrange for the regular clearance of this refuse—I hope as frequently as possible

  1643
  —so as to prevent the accumulation of abominable nuisances.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WEBSTER: I have an Amendment, to leave out the provision as to liquidated damages. Then I have an Amendment to leave out the whole sub-section. I have taken charge of these Amendments for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent).
  Amendment proposed.
  In page 18, line 19, to leave out the words "to pay the occupier by way of liquidated damages five shillings a day while the noncompliance continues."—(Mr. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MORTON: I do not see why it should be considered necessary to impose a fine on these Local Authorities any more than upon the Board of Works or any higher authority for doing what they considered to be their duty. The provision as to the 5s. liquidated damages, is in my opinion equally unnecessary.
  *SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: I do not think that the Vestries need be at all afraid of carrying on their work under the proposal contained in this clause. It will be only those who fail to do their duty who will be subjected to any penalty for wrong doing. Those who properly discharge their duty have nothing to apprehend, and I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to their proposal.
  MR. LAWSON: I only wish to say that in my opinion it is not at all unreasonable to impose a penalty on public bodies who fail to do their duty.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WEBSTER: I object to the proposal contained in this clause on the ground that not only does it impose a fine upon the Vestry, but it would also lead to the institution of that peculiarly objectionable class of people known as common informers. It should be remembered that at different seasons in the year the duty of removing garbage and so forth necessarily varies, and in the summer, when a great deal of such matter was thrown out, it requires to be removed more speedily than may be necessary at other times, and, of course, it is to the interests of the Vestries to discharge their duty in this respect with due vigilance. Take cases such as the
  1644
  parishes of St. George's, Hanover Square, and similar parts of the Metropolis. It would, of course, be the natural desire of the Local Authority to discharge its duties as efficiently as possible, but there may be persons of the class I have mentioned who would go about endeavouring to find the opportunity for alleging negligence, with a view to securing the payment of the fine to be enacted by this clause. This, undoubtedly, would cause a considerable amount of litigation. [Cries of "Agreed."] I do not think it is agreed, and, in point of fact, agreement on this question is exactly what I wish to arrive at. I would point out that in all the Vestries you would have what are called district surveyors, who, under this clause, would have to spend a large portion of their time in the police courts defending the interests of the ratepayers against common informers. Therefore, I say, the clause as it stands is unworkable, and I move its rejection.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause; 29.—(Mr. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'If a Sanitary Authority' stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: At a recent conference of delegates from the various Boards and Sanitary Authorities of London, held in St. George's, Hanover Square, it was unanimously resolved that the proposal in this sub-section, to subject the Sanitary Authorities to money penalties, and thus to encourage common informers, would serve no good purpose, and would be likely to lead to friction. I think the House should give some attention to the representatives of these authorities. It will be no encouragement to the District Councillors of the future to find that their predecessors have been treated in this cavalier fashion.
  *MR. RITCHIE: There is no question of a common informer at all. Every fine levied under this Bill goes to some public rate. Does the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken understand by common informer a person who, having a grievance, prosecutes, and obtains costs if successful?
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I am afraid some of these actions for penalties are really brought for the purpose of re-

  1645
  covering costs. I have an unfortunate client who was sued for penalties of £700 by a common informer, and the real object of that action, I believe, was to recover a heavy bill of costs. I maintain that the question of costs is a material element.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman, being a lawyer, probably knows more about actions of that kind than I myself do. But I always understood a common informer to be one who prosecuted for the sake of a share of the fine. That class of informer we have done away with. However, I do not want to make it pecuniarily the interest of any one to worry the Local Authority. I only want the law carried out, and I shall assent, as I have indicated, to the amount of the penalty being reduced from £50 to £20, and to strike out that portion of the sub-section referring to the liquidated damages.
  *MR. ISAACS: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the penalty should be £5.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has now met the matter very fairly, and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to leave out the words "Fifty Pounds," and insert the words "Twenty Pounds."—(Mr. Ritchie).
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 3. I think the act of demanding a drink or a gratuity should be dealt with in a bye-law rather than by statute law. I think considerable hardship and difficulty might arise from the enforcement of this sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 22, to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause 29.—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIE: This was a question which was dealt with in Committee. It came to our knowledge that it was often impossible to get dust removed unless the men were tipped. This sub-section even now will not prevent a house-
  1646
  holder giving the men 2d. for a pint of beer, which, I think, is often not only acceptable, but even necessary considering the work the men have to do. If I thought it would do that I would not assent to its remaining in the clause. It is aimed, however, against the men demanding a gratuity as a condition for performing their duty.
  MR. WEBSTER: I believe gratuities will continue to be paid whatever Act of Parliament may be passed, and the only result of the adoption of this sub-section will be that the Vestries will have to pay more for the removal of house refuse, as the contractors, who at present take into consideration in fixing the wages of the men, the probability of tips, will be called upon to pay increased wages. Still I think it very desirable that the men should be prevented demanding gratuities.
  MR. LAWSON: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. I think it would be wrong not to insert such a provision in the clause. The contractor would take care to warn the men in his employ what will be the effect of demanding gratuities.
  MR. CREMER: This is the result of a compromise. Some Members of the Committee strove to carry this provision a good deal further, and to impose a penalty on the men for accepting a gratuity. I had the honour of making such a proposal in Committee. I think the gratuity system is exceedingly demoralising. It means that the men are not paid sufficient wages, for the contractor in fixing them takes into consideration the amount of doles received by the men, and these doles are practically levied in the shape of blackmail on every householder. In fact, it is impossible to get rid of the dust unless one complies with the pernicious practice. The householder thus has to pay in two ways. He pays the contractor out of the rates, and he pays the men in the shape of gratuities, for if he does not pay all sorts of obstacles are put in the way, and the men refuse to remove this or that, because they say it does not come within the terms of their contract. Finally, there is a further piece of blackmailing in the demand for Christmas boxes. We desired to put an end to this iniquitous and demoralising system in the Committee, but were outvoted. I hope the

  1647
  right hon. Gentleman will not give way to this present proposal.
  MR. MORTON: It is well known that the dustmen are only paid half wages, and the result is that householders who refuse to pay gratuities cannot get their dust removed. It is time the system was altered.
  MR. BARTLEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (8.36.)
  (9.10.) Amendment proposed, in clause 38, page 21, line 35, to leave out the words "County Council" and insert the words "Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the Government will assent to this Amendment. It seems to me the height of absurdity that the County Council of London, which is charged with the care of the greater interests of the Metropolis—with the general municipal concerns of the whole City, with the finance, and other important questions—should be asked to make bye-laws respecting water closets, earth closets, privies, and the like. Surely this is a matter which ought to be left to the Local Authorities. Regulations with reference to some of these matters will necessarily vary according to the locality. For instance, a district in which there are large stables will require special regulations that other districts will not. I have in my hand a report of the Conference on the 22nd inst., and I notice it was stated by the Chairman of the Conference that the Government would offer no opposition to the Amendment of this clause in the way now suggested. I hope that statement is correct, and that the Government will consent to the proposed substitution.
  *MR. RITCHIE: There is a little misunderstanding as to the position of the Government. I never dreamed that all the making of all the bye-laws contemplated by this clause should be transferred to the Sanitary Authority. The hon. Gentleman will observe that the bye-laws contemplated in Sub-section (a) relate to buildings. The London County Council is the authority in regard to matters affecting buildings,
  1648
  and what I suggest is that I should move an Amendment which would leave the making of the bye-laws under Subsection (a) to the County Council, and transfer the making of the bye-laws tinder Sub-section (b) to the Sanitary Authority. I think that would be in accord with what has been already assented to by the House.
  MR. T. II. BOLTON: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I hope he will omit the words "whether erected before or after the passing of the Act," in Sub-section (a).
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My hon. Friend (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has contrasted the small matters dealt with in this clause with what he considers the more important and greater duties already assigned to the London County Council. I do not wish to enter into any question as to which duties may be more important, but however small the duty of making these bye-laws may be at first sight, it is really one which closely and intimately concerns the health of the Metropolis. As I understand it, this clause simply extends to London the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875 as amended in 1890, which already gives the Building Authorities in districts out of London power to make bye-laws affecting buildings. I think the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman meets the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 41, before the word "the," to insert the words "the Sanitary Authority shall make bye-laws with respect to."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I thought we had heard the worst when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement upon Clause 16. Now, it appears that in another most important matter the County Council is to be thrown over in favour of the Sanitary Authority. I object very much to the proposed compromise. Anyone who is acquainted at all with London life knows very well that very many districts of London have suffered very much owing to the laxity of the Vestry in dealing with the subject matter which Sub-section (b) deals with. Of course, we are in the hands of

  1649
  the right hon. Gentleman. In whichever direction he waves his hand his battalions will follow; but I appeal to his sense of fairness. Having regard to the support he received from some of us in the Grand Committee he ought to have some consideration for us on the present occasion.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid my hand has not quite the power the hon. Gentleman attributes to it if we may judge from the result of the last Division. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not suppose I am in any way deserting any principle which I advocated in the Grand Committee. I am extremely anxious that this Bill should pass into law, and if in that anxiety I have made concessions they are in regard to matters which I do not think will affect the good which this Bill will do. We have divided this matter into two. One set of bye-laws are to be made by the County Council, and the other by the Sanitary Authority. The framing of the building bye-laws is clearly the right and function of the County Council. With regard to Sub-section (b) the hon. Member says the Vestries have conspicuously neglected their duty. They have never had power to make bye-laws in such a matter. We empower any person to prosecute a Sanitary Authority for not doing its duty, and further, we propose to put into the hands of the Local Government Board power to secure the operation of the clause.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I do not think the action of the right hon. Gentleman is either logical or scientific. You may build the most perfect water closet in the world, and it will be a constant source of disease and ill-health, unless you have plenty of water. I therefore think the authority which has the power to make bye-laws as regards construction should also have the power to regulate the amount of water. Moreover, as we look forward to the time when the County Council will have the water supply in their hands, I think it is right they should be the body to make regulations with reference to the water supply in closets.
  *MR. LAWSON: I think it would be a mistake, and would defeat the purposes of his own long-promised Bill dealing with the Building Acts if the right hon. Gentleman separates Sub-section (a) from Sub-section (b).
  *MR. CAUSTON: I think this would be a favourable opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand firmly by the proposal of the Bill. Instead of offering him abuse, I think we ought to offer him sympathy. If he will have a little confidence in those London Liberal Members who supported him in Committee upstairs against the attacks of London Tory Members, I think he will be able to carry the Bill through the House in a form which will do him credit. On the other hand, if he gives way to timid Members who may represent strong Vestries, his Bill will do harm.
  (9.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 24.—(Div. List, No. 30G.)
  MR. LAWSON: In the next sub-section some Amendment will be necessary, for it is not clear how the Sanitary Authority is to act.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will allow this to stand over.
  Amendment agreed to:—In page 24, line 18, after "Council" to insert "and Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Amendment agreed to:—In Clause 42, page 25, line 5, after "road" to insert "exclusive of the footway adjoining any building or the curtilage of a building."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. KELLY: The House will observe that Clause 45 deals with unsound meat, but there is no distinction made between sales where the seller knew the meat was unsound and where the meat was sold by inadvertence under Section 4. It may not be a wilful offence in every case.
  *MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend's intention would be carried out by substituting the words "both such offences," for the words "the offence."
  Amendment agreed to in Clause 45 page 27, line 7, to leave out the words "the offence," and insert the words "such offences."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I propose to omit the clause altogether.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move to omit the clause now.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I should have said to omit Sub-section 4 of Clause 45.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The sub-section has been amended.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: In Clause 59 we have a useful and elaborate clause, and Sub-section (a) relates to certificates in connection with the notification of diseases. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for so much sanitary legislation during the last few years, and who, on more than one occasion, has told us how anxious he is to carry out the provisions of the Notification of Diseases Act, will have sympathy with my object in the point I wish to raise. At the end of the sub-section I propose to add words to provide that the Medical Officer of Health, on receiving the certificate under this sub-section, shall within 12 hours send a copy of it to the head teacher of the school attended by the patient, if a child, and to the head teacher of the school or schools attended by other children from the infected house. Of course, the object is to prevent the spread of the disease among the children in the schools. Disease is spread by the close contiguity of individuals, and in no place is contiguity so close as in public elementary schools. I am anxious that these great centres of education should not also be made centres for the spread of infectious disease, and I want to secure that when a child is known to be suffering from scarlet fever, or any infectious disease, the schoolmaster shall be warned so that children from the same tenement or family may not be the means of spreading the disease through the school. Such a precaution as I suggest would, I think, prevent thousands of cases of disease every year. On educational grounds, too, it is very desirable, for do we not hear of schools having to be entirely closed owing to an epidemic among teachers and scholars? In the belief that the method of notification I suggest would enable the managers of a school to prevent this occurring, both in the interest of public health and in the interest of education, I move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed
  In page 33, line 32, after the word "require," to insert the words "the medical officer of health shall also, on receipt of a certificate under this section, within twelve hours after such receipt, send a copy thereof to the head teacher of the school attended by the patient, when a child, and to the head teacher of the school or schools attended by children of the infected house or tenement."—(Sir Walter Fatter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: Of course, I am anxious to give effect to the principle of notifying the existence of infectious diseases, but I would submit to the hon. Member that this is a matter in which we must proceed with caution. Unquestionably the success of the Notification Act has been due to the fact that such notification has to a certain extent been considered—I do not wish to push it too far—of a confidential character. We are constantly receiving evidence of the great value of the Notification of Diseases Act, and I should be sorry to hurriedly accept an Amendment which might prove detrimental to the operation of the Act. This Amendment is not on the Paper, and I should like to consider it carefully. If the hon. Member will consent not to press the matter now, I should be very glad to discuss the matter with him with the view, if possible, of meeting his wish when the Bill gets into another place. I feel I ought not to accept the Amendment at once.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: This is a question of the highest importance, and I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman adopts a sympathetic attitude towards the principle of the Amendment. In truth, this is but the complement of the great Notification of Diseases Act for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, which has been generally adopted, and is doing so much good throughout the country. I may toll the right hon. Gentleman the position in which the question stands as regards the medical profession. A meeting of Medical Officers of Health was held within the last few months, presided over by Professor Smith, the medical officer of the London School Board. It was a representative meeting, and this point was raised and discussed, and the principle of the awards was unanimously approved by resolution of the experienced sanitarians present. I think the hon. Baronet will confirm me when I say the London School Board have expressed a strong feeling in favour of this method of checking the spread of contagious diseases, and have agreed, I think, to petition in favour of the Amendment. Very much to their honour the London School Board have appointed to look after the health of the children in their

  1653
  schools a medical officer of the highest scientific standing, and the expression of their opinion, therefore, should have weight. I am convinced that such a provision would be of great advantage in checking the spread of disease.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I can corroborate the statement of the hon. Member that the London School Board have agreed to petition in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WEBSTER: I desire to move the omission of Sub-section (6) of Clause 60, because it will create a dual control in a very important matter. The Local Sanitary Authorities in London have powers to extend and vary their order within their district under the Bill—powers which it is very desirable they should have. At the time when in London there was apprehension of a visitation of cholera, the Local Sanitary Authorities, aided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, made every preparation to meet the disease, and many members gave up their holidays and remained in London so that they might be ready at hand in case of any emergency. Now, what does the right hon. Gentleman do by this sub-section? He gives to the London County Council the same power to extend and vary the section, the same power to vary and revoke an order, as a Sanitary Authority have within their district. Now, with all deference to the London County Council, that is putting the Sanitary Authorities into leading strings, although they are quite capable of considering in a time of emergency what is best for their district. I therefore move to omit this dual control. What is required to be done can be very well done by the present Sanitary Authority and the improved Sanitary Authority of the future. It is an altogether unnecessary section, and should be omitted. This also appears to be the view of the Conference of Vestries and Local Authorities held at St. George's, Hanover Square.
  Amendment proposed, in page 25, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (6) of Clause 60.—(Mr. Webster.)
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend, I think, greatly exaggerates the effect of the section, which is, I think, essential. There is no question
  1654
  of overriding the Local Authority. What is intended is to meet such a case as this: Suppose an epidemic suddenly breaks out in one district, the Local Authority of the district, in virtue of the powers given to them, could add that particular disease to the others mentioned in the Act; but without this Amendment the other Local Authorities would have to meet and pass resolutions before the law could be applied over the whole of the London area. It is clear that, in the event of a great emergency, it is essential that some authority should apply the law at once to the whole of London.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: But it does not seem to me that this essential is carried out.
  *MR. RITCHIE: As applied to London the Act is compulsory. This power applies to the addition of some new disease breaking out in a particular district, and this is to provide that the addition shall apply to the whole of London.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: There is force in what the right hon. Gentleman says, though I may point out that it is an innovation to create the County Council the chief Sanitary Authority.
  MR. WEBSTER: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 63, page 36, line 3, after "attendance for," to insert "the destruction of or for."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend here supplies what is clearly an omission, and I am obliged to him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to in Clause 63, line 10, after "to be," to insert "destroyed or to be."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  MR. STEPHENS: My next Amendment, as to the wearing of special clothing by officers engaged in duties in connection with infectious diseases, is important, but I do not feel sure that I should carry it. I shall certainly bring it up at some future time, but I do not move it now. I move the Amendment to Clause 64
  Amendment agreed to, in Clause 64, page 36, line 22, after "infection," to insert "or the destruction of such articles."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Amendment agreed to, in Clause 64, page 36, lines 24 and 25, to leave out "owner or master," and insert "master, or where there is no master on the owner."—(Mr Kelly.)
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to propose the next Amendment which stands in my name, providing that all rubbish which has been exposed to the infection of any disease shall be destroyed. The House must bear in mind that infected rubbish in a single court may infect a whole town. The safest course to take with rubbish is to destroy it as soon as possible. You can take a small machine and burn it at the place of infection. This is far better than to take it about the town.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 38, line 13, at the commencement of Clause 67, to insert the words "All rubbish which has been exposed to the infection of any infectious disease snail be destroyed and."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I think there are some very good reasons why we should not upset and alter an Act passed so recently as last year. My hon. Friend proposes to impose an obligation which many persons will find it impossible to carry out. In some cases the Amendment could not be put into operation without employing machinery which would not be readily available.
  *MR. CAUSTON: Is there in the Bill any definition of "rubbish"?
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I think the Amendment is a most important one. This rubbish is very frequently dangerous, and the only way to get rid of the danger is to destroy the rubbish. Not long ago, within 50 miles of London, I saw a whole field covered with the contents of London ashpits, including old collars, neckties, and rags, any piece of which might contain enough infection to infect the whole locality. Every Sanitary Authority should have apparatus for destroying rubbish, and the medical officer should be able to send it to any spot where it might be wanted.
  *SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: I am very glad, indeed, to support this Amendment. No one but an expert can disinfect properly, and rubbish ought to be destroyed.
  MR. STEPHENS: Might I, with the leave of the House, add one word? The right hon. Gentleman is, possibly, not aware of the Report of one of the Medical Officers of the Local Government Board——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  (10.7.) The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 74.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. STEPHENS: I hope the Government will be able to accept the next Amendment that stands in my name. The power conferred by Clause 71 is a very dangerous one to give to a Sanitary Authority. It may deprive a man whose livelihood may depend on it of the right to defend himself in open Court. The Sanitary Authority will have a power which the ordinary Courts do not possess. It seems to me there is no power of appeal against the decision of the Sanitory Authority in these cases.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 71, page 39, line 32, to leave out from "authority," to end of sub-section, and insert "shall cause a complaint relating to such matter to be laid before a justice, and such justice shall thereupon issue a summons requiring the dairyman not to supply any milk therefrom until he has appeared before a court of summary jnrisdiction, to show cause why an order should not be made by such court requiring him not to supply any milk from such dairy until such order has been withdrawn or cancelled."—(Mr. Stephen.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. RITCHIE: This, again, is part of an Act passed last Session, after full consideration on the part of the House, and I think it is very much better that the power should exist in the hands of the Sanitary Authority than that we should make this alteration.
  *MR. F S. POWELL: The provisions included in this clause have been inserted again and again in local Acts, and it would be a most reactionary proceeding for us to omit them from this measure.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I should like to get some distinct assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill as to Clause 75. Its object is to enable Sanitary Authorities throughout London to establish hospitals.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The clause merely re-enacts the existing law in London.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I think there should be some restriction in it. I have no doubt Sanitary Authorities do, as a rule, confine themselves to the supplementing of infectious hospitals by temporary hospitals to meet cases of epidemic.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.
  *MR. T. H BOLTON: I beg to move, after the word "permanent," to insert "for infectious cases." That will restrict the Sanitary Authority to the establishment of hospitals for infectious cases. This, in fact, would restrict them to what they generally do at present. They do not establish hospitals for ordinary cases, but there may be Sanitary Authorities who may have enlarged views of their authority, and may embark in larger local expenditure and incur larger debts than was ever contemplated. If it is understood that all the Vestries and District Boards, and the District Councils that are soon to follow, are to have power at their pleasure to set up hospitals of any kind fully appointed in any part of London, no doubt it is within the competence of the House to pass the clause, but I venture to suggest that the House is going-very far beyond the necessities of the case. We have great hospitals throughout London that depend upon the generosity of the public. We have the infectious hospitals, provided by the District Asylums Board, for the purpose of dealing with infectious cases, and we have separate institutions connected with the Poor Law system. Now it is proposed to enable the Sanitary Authorities, at the expense of the ratepayers, to establish fresh hospitals in every district throughout London to interfere with and compete with existing institutions. It is important for the House to consider how far, as a matter of public policy, it is desirable to give to the Sanitary Authority this increased power in a general Public Health Bill such as this. For my part, while I am most desirous of seeing the sick poor attended to, I do not wish to see in a general Sanitary Act power given to the Sanitary Authority to interfere with the whole system of hospital relief in London—for that is what this proposal really comes to. Before the clause is passed I think it my duty to call the
  1658
  attention of the House to its wide bearing, to restrict it to what I believe is desirable, and therefore I move that the words "for infectious cases" be inserted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 41, line 34, after the word "permanent," to insert the words "for infectious cases."—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member speaks of this as some new power conferred by the Bill; but I. would point out to him that it is not a new power at all, but merely a re-enactment of the 29 & 30 Victoria, chap. 90, section 37. He will see, therefore, that this is by no means a new proposal. For my part, I regard with equanimity the action of the Local Authorities in London and elsewhere, with regard to the provision of hospitals for the sick poor, and I think the House would be taking an extremely retrograde step if it adopted such an Amendment as this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 94, page 49, line 9, to leave out "of a gastight iron pipe."—(Mr. Howell.)
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Member will confine his Amendment to omitting the word "iron," I will accept it; but it is desirable that whatever pipe is put in should be a gas-tight pipe, so that the fumes from the drain should not get into the rooms.
  MR. HOWELL: I would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, my objection being against the word "iron." I think that whoever assented to that word being inserted must have been either an ironmonger or an idiot. Anyone who has the smallest knowledge of sanitary work knows that glazed pipes are the best.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I divided the Committee unsuccessfully against this, and I am glad to see that the House knows more than the Committee.
  MR. CREMER: On the Grand Committee we did our best to prevent this clause being inserted. I hope we shall now make the matter clear.
  *SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: I am one of the idiots the hon. Member opposite referred to. It is notorious that

  1659
  cast-iron pipes are much longer than any other class of pipes, and have, consequently, fewer joints, and, therefore, there is less risk of percolation. It was for that reason that it seemed to me that cast-iron pipes should be used rather than glazed pipes. Still, I am not so wedded to my view of the matter as to oppose the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I accept his Amendment.
  *MR. CAUSTON: I supported in Committee the word "iron," and I did so with no special personal knowledge whatever as to the necessities of the case, but because strong reasons were urged in favour of iron by the President of the Local Government Board on the advice of his official experts. I think we ought to have an explanation on the matter, and I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether or not he agrees with the Amendment.
  *MR. EITCHIE: I do.
  Question, "That the word 'iron' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. HOWELL: I should like to call the attention of the House to the use of the word "ashpit" in this clause. That word has a special signification, meaning the pit underneath the fire-grate. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon; I know something about this matter. The word as here used has no practical bearing. It should be "ashbin," but certainly not "ashpit."
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 94, page 49, line 13, to leave out the words "and a proper and sufficient ashpit."—(Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. RITCHIE: On page 70 we provide that the word "ashpit" shall include dust-bin, ash-tub, or any other receptacle for ashes and refuse.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: It seems to me that the next clause, Clause 98, is destructive of independent action on the part of the Local Sanitary Authorities. The effect of the clause is that whenever the County Council wants to deal with any sanitary matter whatever of its own motion it may, on its own responsibility, without inquiry, without taking evidence to satisfy itself of the fact that the Sanitary Authority is in default, supercede
  1660
  that Authority, do its work and charge it with the cost. If that is to be the power of the County Council in London, it appears to me that the Sanitary Authorities will be reduced to a most absurd position. They will have no separate power whatever to deal with sanitary matters within their district, because if anyone is dissatisfied on the smallest point with their decision the case may be taken to the County Council, who may deal with the matter and charge the cost to the Sanitary Authority. If that is to be the position the Sanitary Authority is to be reduced to, all I can say is that few people of independence and spirit will be inclined to take part in the work. The feeling of the Sanitary Authorities is entirely opposed to the clauses, as destructive of their independence and interfering with the duties they ought to discharge. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman who represents St. George's, Hanover Square, is not in his place. I had hoped to have his support, for at a conference of many of the most important Sanitary Authorities in London, held in his district, this clause was unanimously condemned. I have here the opinions of a number of the most important Local authorities on the question, all in opposition to the clause. I move that the clause be omitted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 52, to leave out Clause 98.—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 98 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Member is mistaken as to the effect of the clause, and I believe the explanation I gave to the deputation from the Sanitary Authorities that waited on me recently removed all the objections they previously had to the clause. This clause is not to supersede the Sanitary Authority. It simply amounts to this, that if the County Council is convinced that some particular person who is committing a nuisance or offending against the provisions of the Sanitary Acts is doing so with impunity, not being prosecuted by the Sanitary Authority, the County Council may prosecute them. It is in the power of any individual in London to institute a prosecution against a Sanitary Authority for default. If he does not succeed, so much the worse for

  1661
  him, as he has to pay all the costs. But it would be strange if the County Council were to be refused the power.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I am as jealous of interference with the powers of Sanitary Authorities as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, for I wish to see them invested with real responsibility. But the hon. Member will see that the keynote of this clause is that action will only be taken against the Sanitary Authority in case of default of duty, and it is obvious that if the Sanitary Body do neglect their duty there must be some Authority to enforce it.
  MR. DARLING: It must be borne in mind that the County Council can recover penalties from the Sanitary Authority only when they successfully prosecute, and in cases where they prosecute and succeed it must be obvious that the Sanitary Authority has neglected its duty.
  MR. LAWSON: I think the County Council already has power under the Local Government Act to take proceedings, and I do not think the clause will enlarge their powers.
  *SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: The County Council can only take action when it has been proved to their satisfaction that there has been default on the part of the Sanitary Authority. I think it is one of the great merits of this Bill that the Sanitary Authorities in St. George's, Hackney, and in other parishes need have no fear of it when they do their duty.
  MR. WEBSTER: We are always being told by the Local Government Board that the London County Council represents the ratepayers of London, but I should say that the Sanitary Authorities also represent the ratepayers. In inserting this clause in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is virtually derogating from the power and position of the future District Councils.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: I think it is desirable to enlarge the scope of Clause 99 by omitting from the first line the words "by the County Council." The object of the clause as it stands is to enable the Local Government Board to take proceedings upon the representation of the London County Council, if, after inquiry, it is found that there has been default. The Local Government Board
  1662
  is under an obligation to the people to take care that the Sanitary Authorities do their duty; and it matters not whence the complaint, it should, if well founded, be forthwith redressed in the interest of the public health. I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to Local Government in London than that there should be any conflict between the Local Sanitary Authority and the London County Council, and surely nothing could more conduce to such a state of things than that the County Council should be made the medium of representations to the effect that the Local Authorities are neglecting their duty. From whatever quarter complaints proceed the Local Government Board ought to take action, and I protest on behalf of the Local Authorities, and especially that of Islington, which has done its duty, against the London County Council being placed in this invidious position.
  Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 13, to leave out the words "by the County Council."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'by the County Council' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIE: This is a clause which brings into operation very-considerable machinery that ought not rightly to be put in motion. If the Vestry were put into the position of having to defend themselves before the Local Government Board at the suit of any individual, I am bound to say I think they would have a just cause of complaint. The Local Government Board may, under the clause, hold an inquiry and call upon the Local Authorities to do certain things within a certain time, and if the Local Authorities do not do those things within the time the Local Government Board may enforce the order by writ of mandamus, or appoint the County Council to perform the duty. It is a protection to the Local Authority to provide that the principal Local Authority of the Metropolis shall be satisfied that there is a case before application is made to the Local Government Board.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: As far as the London County Council is concerned, we have no particular desire that these words should be retained. I would, however, submit to my hon. Friend that

  1663
  the Amendment would not effect his object. Even if the words were omitted, the County Council could still intervene, but the result would be that anyone else would also be enabled to do so. I do not think the Vestries would wish this, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board why it is necessary to retain in Clause 104. Sub-section (3), which requires that the Medical Officer of Health of a district shall reside in such district or within one mile of the boundary thereof? Might not this, in some cases, militate against the performance by a medical officer of his official duties?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I say, at once, that if I believed the time had arrived when I should receive such an amount of support as would enable me to carry a provision that Medical Officers of Health should devote the whole of their time to their duties, I should be very much pleased. I consider that the time will arrive shortly when it will be possible to carry out a provision of that kind, in accordance with the strong recommendation of the Royal Commission. Provision is made here for the Local Government Board granting an exemption in cases, for instance, where a good man could not otherwise be obtained. I think that will meet all possible requirements. I believe the House will agree that generally a medical officer ought not to reside out of his district.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to propose the omission of Sub-section 3 of Clause 104. It is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman will not always be at the head of the Local Government Board, and permission to a medical officer to reside out of his district might be given as an act favouritism.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 55, line 4, to leave out from the word "appointment," to the word "reside," in line 5.—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: My hon. Friend would, I think, be doing an injury to the cause of public health if he pressed this Amendment. I look
  1664
  forward to the time when many of these districts will amalgamate in order to obtain an excellent man, who will devote his attention solely to the question of public health, and in that case it would be impossible to reside within a mile of each district.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORTON: I move the omission of Sub-section (2) of Clause 105. Local Authorities generally appoint the number of Sanitary Inspectors required, and they object to unnecessary interference with the management of their own business.
  Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 20, to leave out sub-section (2) of Clause 105,—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'where the Local Government Board' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the House will generally agree that there ought to be some power of taking action in case an authority does not do its duty. There is nothing more detrimental to the carrying out of the Public Health Acts than neglect to appoint a proper number of officers, and I think it would be most unfortunate if these words were struck out. The Local Government Board has been charged generally with the care of the public health throughout the country, and I think the House may be satisfied that due care will be taken before this provision is put into force.
  MR. LAWSON: I think this pro vision meets a grave defect in the sanitary laws applying to London. Great laxity in enforcing their sanitary powers has been the fault of the existing Local Authorities in London in the past, and it may be the same in the future. I think it will be agreed that the power given to the London County Council to make representations is not a dangerous power.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I would point out there are already checks or safeguards against undue interference with the independence of the Sanitary Authority. These must be a state of things in which the County Council feel it is incumbent on them to make representation, and then no effect is given to this unless the Local Government Board is satisfied that the representation is well-founded.
  *MR. F. S. POWELL: Speaking from some experience of these

  1665
  matters, having been for many years a member of a London Vestry, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this provision, which hits a serious blot in our London administration. There is among some Vestries an indisposition to appoint a sufficient number of Inspectors.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: My hon. Colleague, speaking in support of the clause, has put just the objection which the Sanitary Authorities have to the clause. It is, he says, only a power of supervision, and it is exactly that to which the Sanitary Authorities object. They do not want a supervision, which they consider an altogether unnecessary interference with the details of their administration, and which will be destructive of their independence in the efficient discharge of their duty. They, as the authority in their district, protest against this supervision and interference.
  *MR. J. STUART: Within the last few months there has been, as hon. Members will remember, an important inquiry with respect to the administration of a certain Metropolitan Vestry and the appointment of Sanitary Inspectors, and, having that in mind, I think the clause is an admirable one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment made.
  MR. KELLY: There is, no doubt, a very strong feeling on the part of Local Authorities that they ought not to be interfered with in the manner the clause proposes in the appointment of the Medical Officer of Health and of Sanitary Inspectors. I say now, as I said in Committee, that the clause is right, so far as it affects the Medical Officer of Health, but the Sanitary Inspector stands in a different position. The duties of the Medical Officer of Health may bring him into conflict with an influential class in the district which is represented on the Vestry. As the House is aware, the Chancellor of the Exchequer when granting certain exemptions from Inhabited House Duty, made it contingent on obtaining a certificate from the medical officer that such houses are suitable for occupation. In the district I represent the medical officer has incurred a great deal of dislike and odium by refusing absolutely to certify houses in street after street, houses said to be excellently
  1666
  built, and on the best sanitary principles. That, however, is not my point. When a medical officer does refuse to certify he must necessarily come into conflict with influential members of the Vestry. There is, however, a very great difference between this officer, a man of high scientific attainments, and other officers of the Sanitary Authority. A clause like this will enable us to retain, as we do in the best districts, the services of men of the highest professional knowledge and skill; but there is not the same argument as regards the Sanitary Inspectors. The Sanitary Inspector is a man who ought to be under the immediate and absolute control of the local representatives of the ratepayers, our Vestries. I propose that the clause should remain as it is, so far as the Medical Officers of Health are concerned; but I see no reason for it in respect to Sanitary Inspectors. Indeed, I think nothing would serve more to impair the efficiency of the discharge of the duties of the Vestry than to take from the Vestry the authority over these officers, whom they have to guide and direct.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 10G, page 56, line 26, to leave out "or sanitary inspector."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend has pretty fairly and accurately stated the arguments for the clause generally, though he does not apply them to Sanitary Inspectors, but to Medical Officers of Health. As the House will remember a Bill passed through this House in 1889 dealing with Local Government in Scotland, and the House unanimously agreed to the insertion of a clause similar to this, so that any Medical Officer of Health and Sanitary Inspector appointed under that Act is subject to dismissal only with the consent of the Board of Supervision in Scotland. A large number, I may say the majority, of the Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors in this country have been appointed under the regulations of the Local Government Board, and these regulations specify that such officers are not removable except with the consent of the Local Government Board, and in consideration of this power given to the central administration, half the salaries are paid by the Board. In London some of the Vestry officers are now appointed under these

  1667
  conditions, and it has been thought right to make the application of the principle general. I admit, however, there is a distinction between Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors. The Local Sanitary Authority with a fully qualified Medical Officer of Health appointed under those conditions is fairly well equipped for the work they have to do, and there is in London no strong objection to this clause with regard to Medical Officers of Health, at least, so I understood from the deputation which waited upon me yesterday. They recognised the reasons for making Medical Officers of Health irremovable except with the consent of the Central Authority. Sanitary Inspectors are not men of the same position as Medical Officers of Health, and there is something to be said on the ground that the authority of the Vestry is weakened by their being unable to deal with such officers. I am not not unwilling to accept the proposal, and, provided that we secure that Medical Officers of Health shall not be removable except with the consent of the Local Government Board, I shall be prepared to assent to the omission of the words as suggested.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I should have preferred to discuss the omission of the power as applied to both classes of officers. I am not impressed by the argument as to the difference in the position of the Medical Officers of Health. The Local Authority will have the power of appointment but not of dismissal, and having appointed the officer they will not have proper control over him. To be consistent the Bill should withhold power of appointment as well as of dismissal if the Local Authority is not to be trusted. As the matter stands, the Sanitary Authority has the right of ap-appointment; but it is argued that if the authority has the power to supersede the officer, unless he is independent, he may be biased by considerations of how his position may be affected.
  MR. KELLY: I would say hampered in his duties.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: Well, I hardly think an argument of that kind goes a very great way. Public opinion is strong in these days, and I cannot imagine that any particular member of a Vestry or any particular class of representatives would be able to prevent a medical
  1668
  officer from the proper discharge of his public duty, or that his action would be regulated by considerations of how it would be regarded by such members of the Board. I think it would be better to leave with the Sanitary Authority the right of dismissal as well as of appointment, but as the clause stands the Sanitary Authority has no right of dismissal at all except with the consent of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board may absolutely dismiss a servant whom the Sanitary Authority has appointed.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Not in all cases.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: In some cases entirely. I understand there are some cases in which the provision of half the payment of salaries is not optional.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It will be if the clause passes.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I imagine it will not be pressed upon an authority refusing to take it. As the matter stands now, the Local Board of Hackney pays the entire sum, and they prefer to continue to do so, that the medical officer may be subject to their authority. The fear is that a medical officer holding his appointment independent of the Local Authority may become the master and not remain the servant of that authority.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: That is the point of view I would strongly support. It is inconsistent with the position of a Public Authority that their officers should be independent as regards tenure of office. Surely to enable them to discharge the duties imposed upon them they should have ful control over their officers. The independence of these officers is inconsistent with the position of the Authority as representing the ratepayers. Naturally, if an officer is independent, he is inclined to treat with less respect the instructions given him, and we know very well that such a system as this proposed does not work well in connection with the work of Boards of Guardians and the conditions upon which their officials hold office. The true principle is that the authority which is responsible for the work to be done, should have full control over the instruments by which that work is carried out, full power to appoint and remove the officers employed. I do not know what pursuasive influence the right hon. Gentleman may have used towards the

  1669
  deputation who waited upon him, but certainly the members must have greatly changed their view if what the right hon. Gentleman has said represents their matured opinion. I hold in my hand a report of the resolution arrived at by the Conference of Sanitary Authorities, and it is to the effect that the Conference viewed with considerable disfavour the proposal contained in this subsection as to Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors. Upon this there has been no difference of opinion among Sanitary Authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman will probably find, before the Bill gets through another place, that this view will be very strongly represented. There has been no necessity shown for depriving the Sanitary Authority of this control over their officers; there is no case in which medical officers or Sanitary Inspectors have been unjustly or unfairly treated by the Sanitary Authorities. I know there is one case in which a Medical Officer of Health is said to have been forced to resign because the Vestry made his position uncomfortable, but the fact of the matter is that officer took umbrage where no offence was intended, and hastily and foolishly resigned his office, not even consulting the members of the Committee he was serving, and he then posed as an injured man. Well, he has had very substantial consolation in the shape of an important and lucrative appointment, which he received mainly because of the sympathy evoked by the injury supposed to have been inflicted upon him. Of course, I do not wish to say that this gentleman was actuated by other than sensitive feelings; but I do think he was mistaken, and that there was no necessity for his adopting the course he took. My experience of local work in the North of London leads me to the conclusion that Sanitary Authorities are inclined to repose the utmost confidence in their Medical Officers of Health, to follow the advice they tender, and to support them; but they do not like their officials to have a position of independence inconsistent altogether with the position which ought to exist between those officials and the authority employing them. There is too much officialism already in connection with Public Boards, and this frequently leads to the servants
  1670
  becoming the masters. I I am sorry that the Amendment has been divided, and docs not cover the whole ground—Medical Officers of Health as well as Sanitary Inspectors—but I am thankful that the right hon. Gentleman has carried concession so far as to leave Sanitary Inspectors under the full control of the Sanitary Authority, although he desires to reserve certain powers to the Local Government Board in relation to Medical Officers of Health. I do not propose, so far as I am individually concerned, to press the view I hold to a Division, and probably my hon. and learned Friend will be content with his protest, and will accept the concession offered.
  MR. MORTON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given way so far as to allow a Sanitary Authority to get rid of their Sanitary Inspectors. It would be a ridiculous position if the Vestry had not such power. I am sorry, however, that the Government will not consent to remove the clause altogether. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney spoke of the Hackney Board preferring to pay the whole of the salaries and keep control, and I may mention that the Wandsworth Board does the same thing, preferring independence and full control over their officers. I am satisfied, from experience of Vestry Boards and in the City, that the clause will have a bad effect both on Boards and officers. The Wandsworth District Board covers a large district, within which they have carried out, during many years, important public works without any complaint, and with the result that they have the lowest death rate of any district in England and Wales. Having so successfully carried out their work, they claim to continue to do so without interference. Hitherto the Board have had entire control over their officers; but such a provision as this is likely to introduce friction, and to prejudice the work of the Board. If officers are in the position that they cannot be dismissed by the Board there is reason to apprehend they will be loss ready to carry out instructions. Speaking from 20 years' experience, I say that Local Boards are usually in advance of their medical officers and have to urge them forward rather than hold them back.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: If the hon. Member has had 20 years' ex-

  1671
  perience of one Local Board, I have had an equal length of experience, during which, I have had relations with many Boards, and I have heard constant complaints every year since the passing of the Public Health Act, and many examples are in my recollection of medical officers being unable to perform their duty satisfactorily in consequence of the actions of the Boards they have served. More than once in my experience some of the best medical officers, men of the highest scientific attainments in the profession, have been obliged to give up appointments and seek positions under more advanced Boards. If yon do not leave medical officers in the position contemplated by the clause you will cause a great detriment to the service for the public health of the country. It has been said, that Local Boards prefer the independence which the payment of the whole of the salary gives, and I can well imagine that in some cases it maybe cheaper and more for their interest to do this, but there is not then that guarantee against bad housing of the people, and jobbery which the independent position of a medical officer provides.
  Amendment agreed to.
  An Amendment made.
  MR. MORTON: I desire to move the omission of the words "with the sanction of the Local Government Board," in line 30, Clause 107. I do not see why there should be any need to get the sanction of the Local Government Board to a temporary appointment of this sort.
  Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 30, to leave out the words "with the sanction of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIE: It is perfectly obvious that if the Local Authorities make temporary appointments at their own will, they will defeat the object of the clause. They would have nothing to do but to make temporary appointments, and so render it impossible for the Local Government Board to exercise that supervision which the House has already assented to.
  MR. MORTON: I accept the explanation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Clause 130 exempts the City of London from the coercive powers of the Bill. I do not know whether the President of the Local Government Board's attention has been drawn to the fact that the Sanitary Authority in the City is not the Corporation. The Commissioners of Sewers are not the Corporation of the City of London. They are a distinct body, and subject to distinct Statutes. I therefore cannot see why the Commissioners of Sewers should be exempt from the provisions to which the important Vestries of Kensington and Islington are to be subjected. In order to elicit the right hon. Gentleman's view, I move the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 64, to leave out Clause 130.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 130 stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I think that when the Local Government Bill was passed there was a pretty general agreement in the House that certain Corporations should not be put in the same position as Local Authorities in the country were, and some old Corporations, such as Canterbury, were even omitted from the provisions of the Act, and made separate counties in themselves. I think the House will acknowledge that if any exemption of that kind is made the City of London, one of the most ancient of all the Corporations, ought to have that exemption. The House may do that with a very clear conscience, because it is well known that there is no better governed city in the world than the City of London.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: We are not dealing with the Corporation, but with the Commissioners of Sewers.
  *MR. RITCHIE: That is almost a play on words. The Commissioners of Sewers are practically a Statutory Committee of the Corporation, and in speaking of the Commissioners of Sewers we are really speaking of the Sanitary Committee of the Corporation of London.
  MR. MORTON: As a Member of the Commission of Sewers, I should like to know if that Commission will have the benefit of this Act?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
  MR. MORTON: I may be permitted to say that the Commission of Sewers is

  1673
  not exactly a Statutory Committee of the Corporation, and that there is a strong feeling in the City that it would be much better if the Commissioners of Sewers were elected directly by the ratepayers or citizens than appointed by the Common Council. At present, however, I want to take care that the Commissioners of Sewers will receive all the good that can possibly be got out of this Act.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The City will have all the powers and duties and privileges conferred by this Act.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: Hon. Members will remember that when it was proposed to put the smaller Corporations in the country under the County Councils with reference to the Allotment Acts, a Whip went round, and hon. Members for districts in which there are corporate boroughs came forward and denounced the attempt to crush out local rights and local independence by putting Local Authorities under the control of the County Councils, and probably the right hon. Gentleman anticipated similar opposition if he had attempted to put the City under the County Council. I only rise for the purpose of pointing out the inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman in giving all these powers to the County Council with reference to the Sanitary Authorities throughout London, and excluding the City from the full operation of the Bill.
  *MR. J. STUART: It is delightful that we have now arrived at an Amendment on which the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) is able to return to the fold he has left so long.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman went into the question of the reason why the City was made a separate county, but the real question on this occasion is the application of this particular Act to the City of London. We must bear in mind that in this matter the City stands in just the same relation to the rest of London as any other authority. Power to make certain bye-laws has been given to the County Councils. The City is over-represented on the Council. It has four Members, while other districts have only two. Having a stronger voice on the County Council than any other part of the Metropolis, it certainly ought to come under the
  1674
  power of the County Council in all matters affecting the public health. I think we ought to have something like a reasonable explanation from the President of the Local Government Board as to why the City is to be treated in this exceptional way. In the case of the School Board, on which the City is directly represented, it is dealt with in just the same way as any other part of London, and I do hope the time is coming when the City will have to recognise that it must stand on the same footing as other parts of London.
  (11.48.) The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
  MR. LAWSON: I have to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to what I am sure is an unintentional omission from Clause 132. I suppose he must insert, "Where a complaint is made by the County Council."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I think the Corporation are treated with some injustice, but I think they are content to remain under that injustice.
  Several Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope the House will permit me to take the Third Reading now.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.—(No. 360.)
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
DR. TANNER: It is not the time, I think, to take the third reading of such a Bill as this without the opportunity for expression of opinion. I have always deprecated the attempt to pass an important Bill just on the striking of the hour when opposed business closes.
It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
Resolutions [25th June] reported.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,651,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers and others, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892."
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I have a question to ask the Secretary of State for War in relation to this Vote; whether in giving consideration to the matter which formed the subject of debate last night, and having in view the saving of sums of money from the Non-Effective Vote, he will consider the propriety of granting some of these savings to the older Purchase Officers who have been wronged by the way in which the abolition of purchase has been carried out? I ask this not as finding fault with the action of the Secretary of State for War, but certain hard cases have arisen, and as there may be large savings on the Vote, I ask him to apply part of such savings to these cases. These officers have been deprived of honorary rank, and I would ask that, if possible, something should be done to meet their case.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I shall be very glad to do anything in the direction of saving money on the Non-Effective Vote, and if I can see my way to doing this, I shall be very glad to devote it to removing any proved grievance in relation to any particular officer. As to whether it may be possible to give any further honours or honorary rank, I think the House on the whole will be rather reluctant to increase honorary rank. A check was put upon it a few years ago when it had grown to an extent that could not be approved of. At the same time, honorary rank has been given in a good many cases to men who richly deserved some such honours, and I shall be glad to see my way to do justice to the claims of any particularly distinguished officer. But, at the same time, to open the door to a great deal of honorary rank would not be a step approved by the Army or this House.
Resolution agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions [see pages 1484–1525] agreed to.

LOANS FOR SCHOOLS AND TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 271.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LOANS FOR SCHOOLS AND TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 271.)
On the Motion for Adjournment,
MR. SEXTON: I take the opportunity to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for a word of explanation of the mysterious proceedings in connection with the Loans for Schools and Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill, the Order for the Second Reading of which has been discharged to-night. I have asked some half a dozen or ten times that this Bill should be placed in the hands of Members, but it has never been produced, printed, or circulated, and now it has been withdrawn and another Bill has been substituted with a different title, and I assume of a different nature. Now, the Government have proposed to themselves two objects in dealing with the subject—one as concerning the manner in which these institutions have been dealt with in the past, and the other as regards their future position. Judging from its title the substituted Bill relates only to past disbursements; and I would ask whether the Government propose to deal with these schools and colleges in Ireland by means of a Supplementary Estimate, or in what way, for the Bill does not appear to carry out the announced intention of the Government?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member has not, I think, seen the substituted Bill.
MR. SEXTON: I have seen no Bill.
MR. JACKSON: I endeavoured to explain the other night that further consideration of the question had led to the drafting of a new Bill with a different title; but the Bill, as the hon. Member will find when he sees it, enables everything which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has promised to be carried out. It will accomplish all that my right hon. Friend has promised to do.
House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Tollemache, after the death of his father.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Cork (County and City) Court Houses Bill ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION (DUBLIN AND BELFAST) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 200.)
PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, namely, That the Bill be read a second time this day ten months, read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it has been stated in the Times newspaper that I intended to be content with the remarks I made last night upon the Land Purchase and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill. I beg leave to say I never said a, word of the sort, and that if the Government persists in the measure, and if I can get a Teller, I certainly shall divide the House if it be possible.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the provisions of this Bill have up to the present time in this Debate been examined chiefly by noble Lords connected with Ireland. Those Irish Peers are all typical Irishmen. All of them have clung to Ireland in misfortune, as they have rejoiced in her good fortune; every one of them has fulfilled his duties as a landlord; and every one of them is thoroughly competent to speak
  1530
  on any subject in connection with that country. Those noble Lords have all cordially accepted the principle of the Bill on this Second Reading, and they have acknowledged the service which has been rendered by the Government in introducing it. At the same time they have referred to certain Amendments of which, no doubt, we shall hear more hereafter; but, in the meantime, they have supported the main propositions of the Government. I am going, in the very few minutes I shall address the House, to ask your Lordships to look at the Bill from an altogether different point of view. I look at it myself, not from the point of view of a person connected with Ireland, for I have no such connection, but I look at it from what may be considered, perhaps, a larger point of view, an Imperial point of view. I regard the Bill from the point of view of those who, while they maintain that one Parliament is essential for the well-being of Ireland no less than for the well-being of all the rest of the Empire, yet still maintain no less strongly that the Imperial Parliament can, and ought, and is bound to deal with the Irish question from an Irish point of view. I maintain also that the Imperial Parliament can deal, and ought to deal, with this question with a generosity and justice and authority which no Irish Parliament could possibly possess. Now, this Bill deals with what is, after all, the whole Irish question, because your Lordships all know, as everyone knows in this country, that the land question, and not any question connected with an Irish Parliament, is the Irish question. With regard to the Bill now before the House, in directing your Lordships' attention to it, I will ask you to look at it in itself. What is it? What relation has it to the rest of the difficult policy in Ireland? Is it or is it not, a great and unparalleled boon to Irish tenants? This is already the third Bill of this Government which has dealt with this Irish question; it differs from the two Bills which were connected with the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) in this—and almost in this alone—that it provides for the British taxpayer far more ample security than either of the preceding Bills. Indeed, almost the only complaint that I have heard or seen against this

  1531
  Bill is that it secures the British taxpayer to such an extent that it cannot be considered fair to bind Irishmen to find these securities without obtaining the assent of some local authority in Ireland. This Bill also differs from the Ashbourne Acts in this, that it extends to a much larger sum of money. But what is more important is to consider, how is this Bill regarded in Ireland? Is it regarded there as a measure of benefit and conciliation? We know that it is so. Even last year, when the Bill was under discussion, and when certain Members in another place were inclined to offer opposition, they were reminded by letters written in Ireland by prominent Nationalists that it was a Bill which was drawn in the interests of the Irish tenants, and that no Irish Member of Parliament, who had the interests of his constituency truly at heart, ought to offer opposition to it. And now, in the present Session, what have we seen during the passage of the Bill through the other House? Why, Irish Members of Parliament have all been vieing with each other in claiming the credit of having introduced or anticipated or devised this or that particular clause in the measure. Let me go now from the principle to touch very briefly on the details of the Bill. The details of the Bill have been very carefully considered by the Government in the interests of the occupying tenants in Ireland, and for the first time an attempt is made to deal in a practical manner with what is one of the reproaches of Ireland—the congested districts. There is one clause making provision for cottages for labourers under certain circumstances. There is another clause which provides for the occurrence of national agricultural calamity. There are a series of clauses dealing with the congested districts, which, as I have said, is the very first attempt which has ever been made to deal in a practical manner with what is confessedly the greatest plague-spot in Ireland. If hereafter Mr. Balfour has to rely for his credit on nothing else than this Bill, I will undertake to say that the right hon. Gentleman's name will be remembered with gratitude in the West of Ireland, as it is already known in connection with the temporary relief works during the winter that has just past. But of all the remarkable clauses in the Bill the most
  1532
  remarkable is Clause 12, which provides that in the case of any farm the tenancy of which has been determined since 1879, and of which the land is in the occupation of the owner, the owner may make arrangements to sell to the late tenant or to his representatives. Those few innocent words contain a great deal, because they tell us that the Government are prepared to pardon to a considerable extent those who have been the victims of the Plan of Campaign. It is quite unnecessary that I should remind your Lordships of what the Plan of Campaign has been. We all, unfortunately, have too clear a knowledge and recollection of it; but I would specially ask your Lordships to remember for a moment the incidents connected with the name of Mr. Smith-Barry and the latest and worst development of the Plan of Campaign as it appeared in Tipperary, and then to consider what it is that this clause purposes to do, and how great is the measure of forgiveness which is contained in it, in view of the events which have taken place recently in Tipperary under the Plan of Campaign. The Plan of Campaign, as we all know now—it has been proved—was a conspiracy which was devised for the purpose of compelling persons not to do that which they had a perfect right to do and which they wished to do; it was a conspiracy which was enforced by terrorism, by violence, and by crime. It was devised for the purpose of forcing unwilling tenants—because we know now that the tenants were unwilling, we see it daily in the newspapers, and we shall, no doubt, hear it more and more frequently and more and more loudly expressed as time goes on—into antagonism with the landlords whom they sincerely respected and continued to respect; and it was devised and started, not by the tenants themselves, but by Members of Parliament, and by those whom, unfortunately, some noble Lords near me are quite prepared to trust with the destinies of Ireland. What has happened is this: their dupes are ruined; they are houseless and penniless, and the Irish Members now come to Parliament and appeal to Mr. Balfour, reminding him that he is a statesman carrying a remedial measure, and imploring him to aid an unfortunate

  1533
  and suffering people. There is a sort of cruel irony in this; but I admit that I can perfectly understand it from these Members of Parliament. It is a mere point in the game with them—a part of the performance. The Irish Members think it quite natural that they should make applications of this sort; but what is remarkable, what is without parallel is that Her Majesty's Government have seen their way to accept this clause, by which those tenants may, under certain circumstances, return to the homes which, so far as they themselves are concerned, they have forfeited every claim to occupy. This proposal, I have said, is an unparalleled proposal. Nothing like it is to be found in history, where, so far as the tenants to be benefited are concerned, they have done everything they could to destroy law and social order, and to injure those who have done them no injury. If the matter had gone the other way; if Mr. Smith-Barry had been ruined, would your Lordships now have been considering a clause to reinstate him in his possessions, or in any way to replace him in the position which he formerly occupied? But, my Lords, while this clause appears to betoken an unlimited clemency and forgiveness on the part of the Government, yet at the same time, it appears to me to be wise and statesmanlike in the highest degree. This Bill has nothing to do with what we hear of so frequently, what at least is so frequently stated on country platforms—that this Government governs by coercion, and by coercion alone. To me this Bill seems a proof to the contrary. If this Government governs by coercion, and by coercion alone, now is the time to prove it, and I hope that noble Lords in this House who entertain that opinion will show us how it is that Her Majesty's Government is displaying here any want of conciliation towards Ireland. I myself give the most thorough and honest support to this Bill. I support it because I believe it is a most statesmanlike measure in the interests of Ireland viewed from an Imperial point of view. I daresay we have not heard the last of the difficulties of Irish landlords. I am afraid that may be so; but this I do say, that from an Imperial point of view and with reference to the position of Ireland in the Empire, this Government has taken a most wise and
  1534
  a most statesmanlike step; and that if the Government will only persevere in the course upon which they have entered, if they will continue to enforce law and order, and if they will also continue to deal with Ireland in the way in which they have dealt with Ireland in this Bill, I am confident that unless Irish human nature is entirely different from human nature in every other part of the world, Her Majesty's Government will create and foster a state of feeling in Ireland far more honest, far more tranquil, and far more loyal than has been for a long time the state of feeling prevalent in that country.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before I enter upon the subject of the Debate I must, with the noble Earl opposite who introduced the Bill express their regret that my noble Friend, Lord Spencer, is not here to-night. However your Lordships may differ from my noble Friend on questions of Irish policy, I am sure you would have been glad to hear him upon this Bill, and for my own part I regret that I am to a great extent obliged to take his place. With regard to what has been said by my noble Friend who has just sat down, I desire to avoid discussion of the Plan of Campaign, not because I am afraid to repeat what I have said on the subject, as I have said before on previous occasions, but because I think it is extremely desirable that we should as far as possible in discussing this Bill, avoid subjects of controversy which will not advance what we all desire—the passing of this Bill in the best possible shape. That will be my apology for not entering upon any discussion of the Plan of Campaign; but, anticipating what I should have to say later with regard to Clause 12, I would remind my noble Friend, with regard to Clause 12, that there are tenants in Ireland who have been evicted besides those who have been evicted because of the Plan of Campaign, and the clause applies to all tenants alike. That I regard as a wise and graceful concession on the part of the Government. Before I touch upon the Bill itself I think it is only due to my noble Friend, the Duke of Argyll, who spoke last night, to notice some of the considerations which he placed before the House. His speech was of a very general nature, but still it opened up questions of great moment,

  1535
  questions which no doubt affect the principle of all legislation of this kind. I am almost tempted to say that at the present time my noble Friend is probably the only person who does not desire to see the creation of a peasant proprietary in Ireland. I think it is universally agreed that the whole history of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland has been such as to render it expedient to abandon the system of dual ownership, and to try in substitution for it a system of freehold proprietors, which they will ultimately be if they purchase tinder this Bill. It is not likely that I, as a landlord, should say that the system of landlord and tenant as it prevails in this country and elsewhere has not many things to recommend it; but, on the other hand, my noble Friend appeared to forget that there are large portions of Europe where a peasant proprietary exists and thrives. I need only mention France, where, no doubt, in portions of that great country there exist landlords and tenants, but where the larger proportion by far of those who occupy and cultivate the land are themselves the freeholders of that land; and I suppose, whatever may be the opinions held as to the advantages of holdings by large as against small farmers, no one will say that to a considerable extent the peasant proprietors of Franco have not been prosperous and thriving. I should be sorry, however, to enter into the history of the relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland. That subject would, I am afraid, awaken angry feelings, and the question could be discussed now with very little profit. I will only make this remark that undoubtedly the attempt to introduce into Ireland such a system of landlords and tenants as exists in England may be said to have failed. There have been many excellent landlords in Ireland inspired with a desire to introduce into Ireland such a system by assisting their tenants in improvements and by consolidating the farms, in fact, by acting upon such a system as we have in England, but taking the country generally that system has not been the rule, and has never taken root. In Ulster, which has been the most prosperous part of the country, a system grew up which certainly could not be compared with the system of landlords and tenants in
  1536
  England, and no doubt the Ulster custom contains the germ of that dual ownership of which we have heard so much. The whole course of affairs in Ireland has been to create a special, separate, and very large interest peculiar to the tenant, and that being the case, it seems to me it is in no way surprising that the solution now sought is that, as the tenant has such a large interest in the land, the landlord having become to a great extent a mere rent-charger, we should seek to convert the tenant's holding into the holding of a freeholder. I believe that is a wise policy. It is a policy which has been pursued by successive Governments in various Bills ever since the Act of 1870, and I for my own part welcome this measure generally as an indication that both parties are resolved to pursue this policy, and as wishing that this policy should be carried, as it will, I believe, have to be ultimately carried, to its full extent. Now, I think I may say that the objects of a good Land Bill must be threefold—first, to accelerate the conversion of holdings into freeholds; secondly, that in lending money to Ireland for this purpose English credit should run no undue risk, or as little risk as is compatible with the objects we seek; and thirdly—and this seems to me the most important of all the ends in view—we must desire that, as far as possible, the measure should effect, I will not say a final settlement of the question, but such a settlement as may in the future prevent agrarian grievances from aggravating political discontent. If we can succeed in that we shall have taken a long step towards ensuring the prosperity and peace of Ireland. The noble Marl opposite, in the opening sentences of his speech, touched lightly, and in the fair and conciliatory spirit which characterised the whole of his speech, on the differences between this measure and the measure introduced by the Government of which I had the honour to be a Member in 188G. I do not desire to detain your Lordships by entering into an elaborate defence of that Bill, or by making a detailed comparison of the two measures, but as it has been frequently said, and I think the noble Earl opposite said that our measure did not furnish the guarantees and securities which are furnished by this Bill, I will

  1537
  point out that that statement is certainly open to contradiction. We were of opinion, and are still of opinion, that our measure gave much greater security to the English Treasury than this Bill does, or than probably any other Bill could possibly do again. The noble Earl spoke of a grant being made to an Irish Parliament, but the measure of 1886 was not in any sense a grant to the Irish Government, because the Irish Government had not really the disposal of the money. A much larger sum, no doubt, than is provided by this Bill was to be devoted to the object of purchase in Ireland, and it was to be placed under the control of an Irish authority; they were to issue the money, but your Lordships will remember that our Bill constituted an Imperial Commission, which was to have the power of determining the conditions and all the details of the purchases, and which, therefore, stood between the Irish Government and the Treasury of this country. What was peculiar to the Bill was this: that the Irish authority was to become, in fact, the landlord during the term for which the annuity had to run before the holding became the property of the tenant. There were, as we thought, considerable advantages in that arrangement, because among the other provisions of the Bill was one which gave to the Irish authority this special advantage and interest in collecting the money. The instalments to be paid to the British Treasury were calculated upon the not rent, the instalments which the Irish Government were to collect from the tenants by the terms of the agreements for land purchase were to be calculated upon the gross: the result of which was that the Irish Government would have had a strong pecuniary interest in collecting the rents fully and punctually. It seems to me impossible to conceive a more perfect security than was provided, because it was a security based upon the whole of that large sum of money, which, if the measure for Home Rule had passed, must have been paid over as the share of Ireland of the Imperial revenue. If the Irish Government made default in paying over the sum due for the interest of money advanced for the purpose of land purchase, any portion of the money due to them might have been withheld. I will not pursue the matter any further, as I only
  1538
  wished to point out that it was our opinion then, and it is now, that the securities taken for the British Treasury under that Bill were as ample and as large as I believe could possibly be devised. Now, let me say a word as to the mode in which this Bill has dealt with this very important question of guarantees. I admit fully, as I suppose every one who has examined the Bill will admit, the extraordinary ingenuity and, I will say, fertility of resource, displayed in devising guarantees under the Hill. It is quite an exhaustive list of possible guarantees, and in that sense the measure may be said to be satisfactory; but, for my part, I cannot help thinking that the attempt to fall back upon the contingent guarantees, if ever they have to be called into play, will be attended with considerable embarrassment. No doubt it may be said that the withholding of the various sums due from the British Treasury under the clause resembles very much the withholding of the money under the Bill we introduced. I admit the similarity, but, at the same time, your Lordships will observe that in that ease the Irish Government would have had to provide out of the general resources of the country what might have been necessary in consequence of their default, whereas under this Bill you will have the Lord Lieutenant acting directly as the organ of the Government at home, who will have to call upon each particular county to make up any deficit in that county, and that will bring home in a very unpleasant manner, indeed, to the cess-payers in the county the inequality of the position which the two classes of tenants will hold in relation to the levy which is made upon them. I mean in this way: that tenants who have not been able to purchase, in consequence of their landlords not having been willing to sell, and tenants who have purchased and made no default will all be obliged to contribute transactions from which they have derived no benefit—they will have to make up indiscriminately for any default; so that the tax will fall upon those who have not been able to purchase, and it will be felt by those landlords themselves who have not sold. I admit that there are extreme difficulties in devising guarantees, but I cannot help fearing that in practical working some of these will fail, however

  1539
  plausible they may look on paper, and that it may be found very difficult hereafter to enforce this clause without causing widespread discontent among those who will have to pay. But I do not wish to press that matter further. I nope it may turnout that these guarantees may not have to be used, but if they are used, I think the consequences will be extremely unfortunate for this country should the guarantees, other than the Contingent Guarantees, prove insufficient. On the question of accelerating the conversion of holdings into freeholds, we had a very interesting and acute criticism from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Water-ford), and I think he showed clearly that there is considerable danger lest under the Bill the purchase operations should not be by any means as rapid and extensive as we all desire. Lord Water-ford, at the commencement of his speech, spoke with very great favour of this Bill, but later on he said such were the provisions of the Bill that they would deter landlords from selling and tenants from buying.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I said some provisions of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the noble Marquess carried his criticism tolerably far, and if the provisions of the Bill are such as to have anything like the effect which he fears, I think we should all be disposed to expect that the Bill would be a failure. While, however, I think the noble Marquess's criticisms well worthy of attention, I by no means go so far as he did in finding fault with the Bill. It seems to me that the 7th clause, providing aid in cases of exceptional calamity from the Purchasers' Insurance and from the Reserve Fund, contains in it the germs of considerable obstacles to the working of this Bill; and I should like to put before the House for a few moments an illustration of what the working of it would be. I will take an imaginary case. Before I proceed to the case I am about to quote, I will say this: your Lordships are of course aware that there are in Ireland a number of holdings which will not be sufficient security, or very good security, for the money to be advanced. The Land Commissioners have felt obliged in a number of cases to refuse to advance the money which has been
  1540
  asked for in order to effect purchases, because they have not considered the security offered by the holding sufficient to justify them in doing so. Take the case of a holding at £50 a year. Assuming it to sell at 17 years purchase, which is by no means a very low rate, the purchase money would be £850, and the annual instalment would be £34 in ordinary conditions. Now, observe what must happen. It would be absolutely essential that £40 a year should be paid for the first five years. That cannot be avoided under the clause. But, supposing that the Land Commissioners considered the security insufficient to justify them in sanctioning an advance of £850 at 17 years' purchase, but that they would be willing to sanction say an advance of £700, and that the landlord and tenant, under all the circumstances—the landlord looking, perhaps, at the chance of selling the whole of his estate, or from other considerations—were willing that £700 should be the amount allocated to this holding; notwithstanding that all parties were willing to accept this £700, the four-fifths of gross rent of the holding must be paid for five years. The result of that must obviously be to interpose serious obstacles to dealing with such holdings, and the result may even be to prevent the sale of an entire estate from the want of facilities in dealing with a weak holding. It may be that a tenant will see the advantage he will reap in the future; and that, where this four-fifths of the gross rent has to be paid for five years, the tenant will come to understand that he is thereby providing a store which may hereafter be used in case of distress; but I doubt exceedingly whether Irish tenants generally have arrived at that, degree of thriftiness and foresight: which will make that agreeable to him, and I regret that the provision has found its way into the Bill. I do not think that the additional security for the first five years will counterbalance the undoubted impediment put in the way of carrying out the transactions aimed at by this Bill. There is another point which affects weak holdings—I mean holdings which may not afford very good security—with which the Commissioners may have to deal, and it is this: In Mr. Balfour's Bill of last year there was, as it seems to me, a very valuable provision,

  1541
  that in any case where the landlord and tenant both desired it, the Commissioners might fix the amount of rent on which the price was to be calculated, whether it was a judicial rent or not; but by this Bill, if the rent be a judicial rent, the Commissioners have no discretion. That seems to me to be unfortunate, because, in some cases, the judicial rents having been fixed in years of greater prosperity than we have had since, both landlord and tenant might be willing to waive the judicial rent in order to facilitate purchase, and I cannot see why the Commissioners should not be allowed a discretion in the matter, as the Bill originally proposed in 1890 that they should have. I come now to the 10th clause, a very important one indeed, which relates to the allocation of the sum available for purchase in proportion to the value of the holdings, and upon that I have not the good fortune to agree with the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Waterford). I think myself that clause is a wise and proper one. It seems to me it would be unfair to deny that there are arguments, and weighty argument, to be used on both sides, and I do not think the arguments against the clause could have been ranch better put than they were by the noble Marquess. I frankly admit that it is dangerous to exclude altogether from the benefits of the Bill a considerable number of the larger tenants, and that they may use their influence to prevent the smaller tenants from purchasing. I also admit that there is this danger which cannot be avoided, that it may, from the action of this clause, be impossible for a landlord to sell the whole of his estate, and he may not be willing to sell it in small patches. Those two arguments have, I think, very considerable weight. For my own part, however, I think the arguments on the other side predominate. This measure, which pledges English credit, was specially designed to benefit the great mass of the poorer and smaller tenants in Ireland, and it would be an unfortunate result if the money advanced by the British Treasury found its way in undue proportion to the larger tenants, while in every county: there were large numbers of the smaller tenants left out of the benefits conferred by the Bill. One speaker last night
  1542
  alluded to a paper which has been sent round by Mr. Rathbone, a very interesting paper indeed, and I think his conclusions, with a slight correction which I will make, cannot be impugned. He says that under the Ashbourne Act, and there a correction must be made, only one-third of the amount advanced has been applied to the purchase of holdings under £30 rental. I may observe that it has been presented to the House that the correct amount is 39 per cent. Now the holdings under £30 are no less than nine-tenths of the entire holdings in Ireland. If the money to be advanced under this Bill were applied in the same way, the result would be that nearly half of the larger holdings in Ireland would be purchased, while about seven-eighths of the tenants under £30 would receive no benefit from the Bill. It seems to me these figures are really conclusive, and that it is necessary that there should be something in the Bill which should insure that the smaller tenants should receive their full share of the benefits under the Bill. I do not think that the noble Marquess noticed that the clause is not without its safeguards. After all, the clause is not a hard and fast one that cannot in any way be relaxed, but very wisely, I think, there are two powers given of relaxing the clause. One is that whenever the whole of the money available for the larger tenants has been expended in any county, the Lord Lieutenant will have power to relax the stringency of its provisions. He may, by an Order to be laid before Parliament, dispense with this clause and issue further money for the larger tenants. The other power which seems to me directly to meet the objection of the noble Marquess as to the sale of an estate in patchwork, is that where it is necessary that for the sale of an estate this clause should be dispensed with as regards the larger tenants, the Lord Lieutenant will have the power to do so. With those two safeguards I think this is a very wise and right provision, and that we should at all events make an experiment with the clause. I do not say that it may not possibly be necessary hereafter to provide some variations in the direction of enabling the larger tenants to sell, but at all events at present with the experience

  1543
  we have of the working of the Ashbourne Acts, and with the knowledge we have of the vast number of these small holdings in Ireland, it is a wise provision to make with regard to dealing with holdings above and below £50. The noble Marquess referred to another provision which I think well deserves mention; it is, I think, a subsection of the 7th clause, which he called "the calamity clause." I certainly think that the introduction of the clause into the Bill was unavoidable, but for all that the dangers which may arise under it in the case of great agricultural distress will be very considerable. Now, that brings me to a point upon which I feel very strongly, namely, that this Bill, differing in that from the Bill introduced by the Government of which I was a Member, makes the tenant during the whole of these 49 years in point of fact the direct tenant of the English Government. That seems to me to be a serious and really grave danger, and the introduction of this clause with regard to the possible remission of the sums due in case of agricultural calamity brings you at once face to face with it. To some extent the position of the smaller Irish tenants towards the British Government will be similar to that of the Indian ryots towards the Indian Government. We know from our experience of India what has taken place there. I am well aware of it from ray own experience. What is called revenue—equivalent to rent—is due to the Government in a great part of India directly from the ryots every year, and is recoverable under the strictest powers; but when such a calamity as famine occurs the Government finds it absolutely impossible to recover those rents, and they have to strike off the Government books the sums due as revenue from the distressed districts. In like manner if you consider, even apart from such a calamity as a potato famine, that agricultural distress in Ireland, from time to time, falls hardly upon the smaller Irish tenants, does it not occur to your Lordships that it will be almost impossible for the Government of the day to resist the pressure that will be brought to bear upon them from many quarters in favour of those tenants? Your Lordships must remember, and I
  1544
  am not disposed to shut my eyes to the danger, that it will be a popular thing for Irish Members to press upon the Government of the day the needs, and certainly in some cases the just needs, of their constituents. Is there not a serious danger that under this clause the Government of this country may find itself in collision with a vast number of its tenants, and that we may be involved in difficulties of a character and extent which we have not yet seen even in Ireland? My Lords, I do not know that I have any other serious criticism to make upon the Bill. Your Lordships will have easily gathered that I am far from opposed to this Bill. On the contrary, I have not taken the view which was taken by so many persons in this country at the time of the last elections, that it is wrong to pledge English credit for the purpose of such a Bill as this, facilitating land purchase in Ireland. On the contrary, looking at the whole past history of that country, looking at the course of land legislation since 1870, and to the real necessity for the removal of agricultural discontent by means of some large system of land purchase, I say for all those causes I believe that English credit can never be more legitimately employed than for such a purpose as this Bill contemplates. Ireland is the weaker country; Ireland is a country which has suffered from many calamities; Ireland is a country which all Parties in the State desire to see relieved from agricultural discontent, and if possible from political grievances. Therefore it is that I think this measure is a step in the right direction, and I believe that that must be the opinion of those who desire to see Ireland relieved from permanent agrarian discontent. Your Lordships, however, will not be surprised when I say that what I lament, though I know such an opinion may not find many supporters in this House, is that this legislation does not form part of a general settlement of the Irish question. And I am afraid that, as has been the case with so many other measures that have been adopted by this country with the best intentions towards Ireland, it will be found that the boon conferred by the measure will be deprived of half its effect by our fearing to take the whole of the steps which I believe to be necessary, and which we shall ultimately be

  1545
  obliged to take. For those reasons I adhere to the opinion which I held in 1886—and I will say but this one word on the subject that a political settlement, which would have placed an Irish authority in immediate connection with a measure of this kind, which would have enabled the Irish authority to carry into effect its provisions, and would have made that the authority with which the tenants in Ireland would have had directly to deal, would have had a more healing effect than the measure now before us. But, at the same time, I acknowledge, and freely acknowledge, though I regret the noble Lords opposite do not entertain the views upon the subject which I entertain, that they have introduced a measure which is intended to benefit Ireland, which, though there are some defects in it, I believe will benefit Ireland, and which will pave the way to measures which must ultimately transfer nearly the whole soil of Ireland to the tenants of the country. My ardent hope is that when that shall occur there may be a new leaf turned over in this history, and that these poor Irish tenants may become useful and thrifty and loyal subjects of the Queen. But, at the same time, we must not shut our eyes to this, that we are practically eliminating the landlord class from Ireland, and that whatever faults we may have had to find with the general body of Irish landlords, there were many among them who have deserved well of their country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, it is, I am sure, matter of congratulation to all your Lordships that the criticisms on this very important Bill have been presented to this House in such an admirable spirit, that it has been so moderately and temperately discussed by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and by other noble Lords who have taken part in the Debate. It is obviously impossible for us to approach the consideration of any great scheme like this without having a largo regard to the special requirements of Ireland, without having present to one's mind the whole circumstances of that country and its history, and without having also considerable knowledge and all the legislation or attempted legislation connected with proposals similar to the present. It is obvious, and
  1546
  it has been proved to the minds of every one of your Lordships who have been present here both yesterday and to-day, that it is impossible to draw such a measure upon abstract lines or ideas, or to expect anything like the ideal of perfection in the legislation suggested, and I think that the true way of looking at it is as one dealing with the great question of the Irish land, and in that view I think that it is as good a Bill as can be produced and be expected to pass, dealing with an important and difficult question like that of Land Purchase in Ireland. The whole history of Ireland shows that the agrarian question lies at the root of the whole difficulty of the administrative government of the country. It is obvious, it has been proved to the minds of every statesman who has applied himself to the consideration of Irish affairs for many a long day, that, if we want to strike at the root of the agrarian difficulty, the way to grapple with it, to deal with it in a way which would be consistent with justice and the sympathies and interests of the people, is to approach it with a desire to increase the number of occupying owners through the agency of purchase. It is now admitted by every one who has studied the subject, that the only way of dealing with the purchase problem is by the application of Imperial credit. These are elementary topics—these are the primary considerations of the question—and really it would not be necessary to refer to them but for some controversy that has arisen, not in your Lordships' House, but elsewhere. The noble Duke who made so interesting and attractive a speech yesterday evening, alluded to the circumstance that Lord Waterford had let fall the expression of "buying out the landlords." I do not think that my noble Friend meant to conveys that he desired the removal of the Irish landlords, or that that was a policy which was expedient for us to pursue. I do not consider that under the operation of the provisions of this Bill, as presented to your notice, and as thy will be found on a calm consideration, they will lead to the removal of the Irish landlords. I would venture to hope that many of the Irish landlords, long after this Bill is passed, will find it consistent, not only with their tastes and associations, but also with their direct pecuniary

  1547
  interests, to remain in their homes, surrounded by the farms and domains, which they cultivate. I hope that their relations will not be unfriendly with the new class of owners, and that they will find their relations assuming that old kindliness which prevailed until recent years between Irish landlords and their tenants. For myself, I should regard it with much regret if a great measure of this kind should lead to the removal of a. large and influential class like the Irish landlords. Now, all parties who have approached this question have done so practically from the same point of view. They have all recognised that a wide measure of purchase is not only desirable, but essential. They have also recognised that Imperial credit is necessary. The question has never been approached by any responsible statesman in living memory, from any other point of view. The first name connected with this policy, as we all know, is the great and illustrious name of John Bright. Mr. Bright advocated this question earnestly and eloquently over 20 years ago. What was proposed in his day was only two-thirds of the purchase-money. That was thought sufficient liberality, but it was found that with even that liberal advance under the Bill of 1870 the number of tenants who came in was only 900. Later on the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1881 advanced their proposals; being earnestly desirous that there should be a satisfactory settlement of the question, they approached it in no niggardly or ungenerous spirit. They desired, I have no doubt loyally and with statesmanlike earnestness, to achieve success, and with that view they proposed to increase the amount advanced from two-thirds to three-fourths. That was very large progress, and yet, my Lords, it was found that it was not a success, for the number of the purchasers under that wide measure of purchase did not reach more than 700. These are small figures, and they showed us the difficulty of grappling with this question and of operating on the Irish mind. They showed us the necessity of approaching the question with a full knowledge of the difficulties, and in a determined spirit to cope with those difficulties if we desire to make our measure a success. The measure of 1881 has been criticised—I do not
  1548
  propose myself to criticise it—in this Debate in a few happy and masterful sentences by Lord Waterford and by the noble Duke, but I will remind your Lordships of this: that Lord Hartington, who was a very powerful and active Member of Mr. Gladstone's Government, shortly after that Bill passed, used an expression which has become historic in regard to this question of land purchase in Ireland. The controversy was not directed to the purchase clauses. They were passed with every desire that they should work, but Lord Hartington, in reference to the whole controversy, said—
  "That he looked upon the fair-rent clauses' which were then being fought so keenly, resolutely, and vigorously, as supplying a mere modus vivendi,"
  —that was his expression—
  "while an achievement was being gradually worked out which all statesmen on his side of the House and many on the other side regarded as the goal which should be sought for."
  That was the position of things in 1881. A further development obviously became necessary, and the result was that in 1885 the Bill with which your Lordships are familiar was introduced into this House. That Bill proceeded on some very obvious considerations, which would suggest themselves to anybody. It proposed that the whole of the purchase-money should be advanced to the tenant where two-thirds, and even three-fourths, had been found ineffectual. That was the remaining step, and it was taken, and the whole advance was made. It was the great overlying governing principle which was felt to be necessary to lay the foundation of success. There was provided this safeguard: It was assumed, and experience has shown that the assumption was correct, that the Irish tenants, trusted with an advance of public money to make them owners of their holdings, would be honest, and they have shown that they can be honest. It was proposed that a portion—one-fifth—of the landlord's money should be retained, and the whole liability of the tenant was made to last for a period not exceeding 49 years. I have told your Lordships the figures as to purchase under the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870 and the purchase clauses of the Act of 1881. Under the Act of 1885 the magnitude of the

  1549
  operations is shown by the fact that the purchases exceed 20,000 in number. That shows that the new departure and the further development have been successful, and how necessary it is to retain in this Bill the main and essential principle of the Act of 1885. It was a popular Bill in Ireland for obvious reasons. The elegant simplicity of an advance of the whole of the purchase-money—public money for Irish purposes—commended itself to the sense of justice which is in every Irishman's breast, and I venture to assure your Lordships that as an Irishman I share in that noble Instinct. On behalf of my countrymen, I may point this out: that the tenants of Ireland have paid back the money with splendid accuracy and precision, as was pointed out by Lord Londonderry last night. I think that of all the money which has become payable, only £2,000 remains due. Now, in this Bill, in addition to the one-fifth wisely retained, there are other securities for safeguarding the taxpayers' money. We first gave £5,000,000, and then £5,000,000 more, and then it became obvious, from public opinion and opinion in Parliament and out of Parliament, that the country was not prepared to advance further money in the same way; and therefore it was necessary, if we made fresh and larger financial proposals, to have further safeguards. Thus it is that in the present Bill we have proposals elaborately and carefully framed, but, as I venture to think, perfectly intelligible and open, in order to safeguard the Treasury in every possible aspect of the question; and I believe that it is absolutely capable of demonstration that although English credit is pledged, and necessarily pledged, it is pledged without an atom or particle of risk. The Bill has passed through the other House under the guidance of the Chief Secretary with an ability and resource which everyone recognises, and which was only to be expected from one who has a great mastery of affairs, and it has been presented to your Lordships' notice with singular clearness and force by the Lord Privy Seal. Your Lordships have heard criticisms from the Irish landlords' point of view in a speech of great power, and you have heard the criticisms from the noble Earl who has just sat down. What do these criticisms come to? I
  1550
  fear it would not be possible, even with the most perfect draftsmanship, to submit a Bill to your Lordships which would not be capable of being criticised. Has not this Bill stood the ordeal of public criticism? It is an important Bill, dealing with one of the vastest subjects connected with Irish life, necessarily made up in large measure of check and re-check and every form of safeguard that can be devised for the protection of the English Treasury; and I appeal to your Lordships whether you have ever known any Bill of such intricacy that has better stood the ordeal of public criticism. There has never been a suggestion of any other Bill that at the present time of day would have a chance of passing through both Houses of Parliament, and with a. chance of working. The noble Earl has referred to the Bill of 1886. I do not intend to discuss that measure; it is a measure that has not passed, and never will pass. I have to remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) of one little incident of the Bill which he unkindly left out in the cold, namely, that under it the State was to become the direct landlord of the countless tenants in Ireland.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; the Irish Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The Irish Government would have become their landlord! I will not dwell on the interruption, though it is rather an inviting one. The noble Earl pointed out, though I was not much taken by the statement, that the contingent guarantee might lead to embarrassment. No doubt the contingent guarantee, if it came to be called upon, might cause disagreeable feelings to those who might be called upon to pay—I do not know any form of guarantee yet invented that does not cause disagreeable feelings when it is exacted; but having regard to the experience of the existing Act of Parliament and to the other safeguards, it is to the last degree improbable that under any circumstances any part of the contingent guarantee will be applied for. The contingent guarantee cannot be touched until the last of the cash guarantee is exhausted, and if it is applied for and made available at all it is obvious that it must be to a very slender extent, and there is every desire

  1551
  to work it out in the way that will cause the least possible inconvenience. There is one point which the noble Earl touched upon in the closing portion of his speech—and he did it so delicately and kindly that one hardly likes to offer any criticism upon it—that the effect of the measure would have been happier if an Irish authority had been worked into the business. The noble Earl prefers an Irish authority to work the Bill. Well, there is no accounting for tastes, but, at any rats, there is no prospect of an Irish authority being set up for—shall I say?—an indefinite period. If, therefore, you want to pass a Bill now on this great question which is to work, I say it must be such a measure as this, which is, on the whole, as sound and good a Bill as can be devised. I think the noble Earl might have said a word about the congested districts. I think that part of the Bill Mr. Balfour has every right to be proud of.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear. I am sorry I did not refer to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is the first serious effort of statesmanship applied to Irish affairs that has sought to deal with the congested districts otherwise than by the in hospitable policy of emigration. That is a part of the Bill which is of the highest importance. It provides capable machinery and sufficient pecuniary resources, and I most earnestly hope and believe that it will be attended with the very best possible results for those parts of Ireland that most need assistance. Lord Waterford, whose speech yesterday was marked by such power and incisive criticism, spoke with great fairness and favour of the Bill as a whole, and that was only to be expected from one who has so great a mastery of the subject as my noble Friend. Practically, I may say, his criticisms come down to two, and two only. The first has reference to the tenants' insurance clause, which requires the tenant to pay for the first five years, if he purchases at less than 20 years' purchase, 80 per cent. of the original rent. I think my noble Friend, in his observations in introducing the Bill, was under a misconception when he spoke of this part of the scheme as complex. So far as the direct dealings of landlord and tenant are concerned, the
  1552
  procedure under this Bill will be just as simple and intelligible as at present. The landlord on the surface can know what he is doing; so can the tenant. There is no room for doubt as to the bargain which each is entering into. I beg to submit that consideration to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who come from Ireland, and are closely interested in Irish affairs. It is of the utmost importance that the two parties should know every turn of each other's mind. As between the landlord and tenant there is no room for complication, doubt, or uncertainty. The only suggestion of matters of complexity is when you conic to deal with the checks that are provided to safeguard the British and Irish taxpayer against the possibility even of any chance of loss. My noble Friend the Marquess of Waterford says that this provision that the tenant is to pay not less than 80 per cent. of the original rent for the first five years will prevent the working of the Bill, and the noble Earl, using a grander phrase, said it would avoid accelerating the Bill. But I suppose both expressions mean very much the same thing: one is perhaps the more direct and Irish way of putting it, the other is the more polished expression which is to be expected from a gentleman holding the official position of the noble Earl. Well, this all rests, if I may venture to say so, on assertion and on prophecy, and I would venture to hope that the prophecy will not be found afterwards to eventuate in any successful achievement in the future. It must be borne in mind, as was pointed out by Mr. Balfour more than once in the Debates in the House of Commons, that the position of the tenant, even with this check for the first five years, is so favourable that it is difficult to conceive that a great many tenants, at all events, will not be most desirous to get the benefits of the Bill, even with this clause in it. What are the benefits? There is the solid advantage of an immediate reduction of 20 per cent. on the rent. He begins by getting a 20 per cent. reduction, and it is obvious that in consequence of paying so much at the beginning he will get a much greater reduction at the end of five years. But there is another advantage. It has been pointed out as one of the possible inconveniences

  1553
  of this plan of land purchase that if you put a successful purchaser in a very prosperous condition beside a property which has not been purchased you will cause great discontent and dissatisfaction. The fact that this increased payment has to be made for the first five years will prevent, for that time, at all events, any sharp and painful contrast, and enable the matter to become more a question of debate and to be more closely examined, so that they will see what this extra payment is. When they understand the question they will see the force of what is really being done. Its name is given in the margin of the Bill. I think it is called a tenant's insurance. He is not asked to pay more for anybody else—not for the State, not for the landlord, not for others. He is asked to pay higher than he would under a normal operation for the first five years to make an insurance fund for himself, and that is worked off in this way—that it will be competent for a tenant, if exceptional circumstances should prevent him from paying a substantial part of the instalment, to ask that part of this insurance money shall be applied in his own relief. That is a provision which the Irish tenant understands; and any landlord knows perfectly well that the Irish tenants are fully alive to the possibility of what are called "rainy days." But suppose that they had not exceptionally to ask for assistance. Then at the end of the time they would get the whole benefit of the fund. Therefore every farthing will go to the benefit of the tenant, either as insurance from risk for the first five years, or as a substantial reduction of his later payments. Then it has been said that this fund will weaken the punctuality which the Irish tenants have so far shown in paying their instalments. Is that so? The insurance fund, never a very large sum, is the tenant's own; he has a moderate control over it; if he can satisfy the Commissioners that the circumstances are exceptional he can derive assistance from it, but he can never go beyond the amount of the insurance fund. The other matter of exceptional distress has nothing to do with the insurance fund; that has reference to the reserve fund, and it will be found that a different mechanism has to be applied. The locality has to be considered,
  1554
  and independent public authority has to consider whether, under all the circumstances of exceptional distress, it deserves special consideration. But there is no remission of the amount payable by the tenants. An advance may; be made to meet the exceptional state of things out of the reserve fund to enable the instalments pro hâc vice to be paid, and then the amount so advanced is to be added on to the instalments payable upon the holding. This will show at once the care that is taken throughout the Bill to indicate to the tenants that, whether the circumstances are simply exceptional, or whether there is exceptional distress, they are not getting out of one farthing of their obligations. They will see by the provisions all through the Bill that honesty is their best policy. It must be remembered that if there are any advances out of the insurance fund or the reserve fund, these funds must be restored at the first moment to their normal amount. Several noble Lords noticed the clause which provides that a discrimination shall be made between holdings above and those below £50. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) referred in his speech to a detail which must be looked into. I am sure that everything he has said will be carefully put down and duly weighed. He said that there was a difference made in regard to rents, that the authorities were given powers where the rents were not limited to one class of rent, but going over all rents, and that that would give some elasticity to this clause. The Marquess of Waterford was against this discrimination, and so was the Marquess of Londonderry. The teaching of experience shows that in the working of the existing purchase legislation a great proportion of the money has gone to the larger class of holdings. Of course, this clause was directed, I think with a wise and a high policy, recognising the teachings of experience, to give the smaller tenants all the benefit possible. Although it was in the past, as it would be in the future, competent to the poorer tenants equally with the wealthier ones to agree with their landlords to sell to them, yet experience has shown that the more wealthy tenants could go into-the market and make their arrangements, and it was thought desirable to be cautious and to safeguard the money

  1555
  available so as to give every possible chance and opportunity to those tenants who were under the £50 line to get all possible benefit from the system of land purchase. I think that is a fair, reasonable, and wise policy. This clause has been drawn with great caution and with every desire to show that a hard and fast line has not been laid down. Its elasticity has been shown by the noble Earl. It is plainly indicated that, if a sale is dependent on width of view in regarding the transaction, there is no desire to apply a harsh construction of the terms of the Bill. Then, too, a wider power is given to the Lord Lieutenant on consideration to permit operations. The Marquess of Londonderry in his too short criticism yesterday made a suggestion that if the clause stood as it was, and if it were found by experience that the money for the tenants under £50 was not used up, the Government might consider Amendments to allow the unused money to be utilised by the tenants above the £50 line. If that Amendment is put on the Paper it will be considered very carefully. The Marquess of Waterford presented figures with very great force, making a contrast between Connaught, Leinster, and Munster, of the sums which would be given under the Bill as at present drawn to the tenants above and the tenants below the £50 line. The modification which the noble Marquess proposed was to disregard the number of holders, to group all the valuations together, and contrast the valuations, as a whole, over £50 with the valuations, as a whole, under £50. Of course, all Amendments from the noble Marquess or other noble Lords which may be placed on the Paper for the Committee stage will receive the most careful consideration. A speech was made at the close of the Debate yesterday by Viscount de Vesci, and the noble Lord asked a question about the clauses which were dropped in the other House. He wanted to know whether it was intended to go on with those clauses. Of course the fact that they were dropped for a sufficient reason indicates that they are not to be persevered with here. Those clauses, which were opposed, contained the wishes and views of the Government. Some of them have found their way into the Bill as it stands at
  1556
  present, but it will be obvious that they cannot be introduced to any large extent in your Lordships' House. At this time of the year it would be impossible to send the Bill back to the other House with any additions to a large extent. If I have left out anything in my criticisms upon the speeches of the noble Lords who have addressed the House, I regret it. I have intended to notice all the topics which have been presented for your Lordships' consideration. In conclusion, let me say that this Bill is regarded by the Government, and by all persons who have considered the subject, as one of the highest possible importance. It is a measure presented with the earnest desire to have it considered fairly and reasonably, on its merits; and it has been presented in no aggressive or Party spirit whatever. The speech of my noble Friend in introducing the Bill to your Lordships was, I think, a model both of fairness and clearness; and the noble Earl opposite has not departed from that line. Speaking for myself, I believe that this is a good Bill, and a Bill that is wisely framed. It is eminently calculated to work; and, further, it is a Bill which, when it is passed, will substantially and rapidly add to the peace, contentment, and development of Ireland.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I intend to trouble your Lordships with but a few observations on this Bill. If the object of the Bill, and the only result likely to ensue from it, wore to gratify the noble instinct, which my noble and learned Friend opposite shares with his countrymen, to acquire as much British money as they can lay their hands on——
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: With the view of paying it back.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No doubt—even with that modification, I should take very little interest in the measure. I should feel equally little interest in it if its object were only to put money in the pockets of the Irish landlords. If that were the only object to be gained by such a Bill, I, for one, have no disposition to see money flowing in that direction, and I should not think that Parliament ought to intervene to provide money for such a purpose. But, although that may be an incidental result of the working of this Bill, yet undoubtedly it must have

  1557
  other results in view; and it is impossible to consider it fairly without having regard to the social condition of Ireland; to the relations of those who are interested, as landlords and tenants, in the land of their country; and to the sentiments of Irishmen on this subject; and I will add without having regard to the obligations imposed on us by the past legislation of Parliament. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) yesterday took a rapid review of the agrarian legislation which had been passed since the Encumbered Estates Act. He said, and I quite agree with him, that the result of contemplating that legislation and its effects must be to all of us a melancholy one. It has undoubtedly shown that, with the best possible intentions, and with every desire from time to time to pass into law such legislation as was thought best calculated to settle agrarian difficulties and produce peace and contentment, we seem to-day to be admittedly far from that goal, and some of our steps were confessedly not in the right direction. The noble Duke near me, indeed, drew a line apparently at the year 1881, and whilst he admitted that the legislation prior to that date had been beneficial, or, at all events, could be justified in principle, he appeared to contend that then there came a chasm, that principles disastrous and destructive were introduced in the Act of that year, necessitating the Act of 1887 and the measure now before your Lordships. I am not going into that question, although it seems to me that a review of the legislation that has taken place, if impartially considered, must lead to the conclusion that the Act of 1881 or some such measure was an absolute necessity, and that the Bill of 1881 was just as much the natural development and sequence to the Bill of 1870, with which the noble Duke was content, as the Bill of 1887 was the necessary sequel of the Bill of 1881. Although I should no doubt draw from the history of our legislation with regard to Ireland a somewhat different conclusion, I am not going to enter upon it to-day—it is a matter far too difficult and intricate, and it is not immediately germane to the subject we have before us; but I think it must infuse into many minds a doubt whether after all the British Parliament has not shown itself,
  1558
  in a measure at least, thoroughly incapable from time to time of appreciating the social condition of Ireland, its needs, and the proper remedies to be applied. It seems to me that the very failure, the admitted failure, of the legislation of the British Parliament imposes a duty upon us. It is impossible for us to be satisfied with the present condition of things, which we all admit to be unsound, unhealthy, and productive of discontent and disturbance, without looking for some remedy, and, therefore, I cannot doubt that it was the duty of the Government, or of any Government, if not satisfied at leaving the legislation passed in previous years to work out the cure, to endeavour to provide some remedy. If it believed that some other remedy must be applied, it would not be doing its duty if it did not attempt to find and apply that remedy. One word I should like to say as to the statement that this Bill has for its object the putting an end to dual ownership. I cannot altogether agree with the noble Duke near me that what he calls dual ownership in relation to this matter would necessarily be an evil, that it could not work satisfactorily under certain social conditions; nor do I feel certain that if the condition of things brought about since 1881 could have been brought about 40 years before, it might not, have proved a success, whereas in 1881 it came too late. I am not going to argue it now; but all must admit that that which might be a remedy at an early stage or in an early condition of a disease may cease to be an adequate means of cure when the disease has greatly progressed and become more and more acute. I merely put that suggestion to your Lordships, because, for my own part, I should not like to admit that the creation of such relations as were then created would necessarily, under all circumstances, be evil in their effect or unsuccessful in their working. Now, my Lords, can any one doubt that if by a magician's wand you could to-morrow turn the great mass of tenants in Ireland into occupying owners, you would produce thereby a vast change in the condition of Ireland in the direction of promoting contentment, peace, and social order? Of course, we have no such speedy means of bringing about such a result as that,

  1559
  but if that is a change which all would feel to be beneficial, it is only possible, with our limited powers, to bring it about by some legislative process such as is here attempted. I think in that lies the justification of a measure of land purchase. It cannot be doubted that first of all it is a mischief that property should be insecure. I think all will agree that, whatever be the description of property, there is an evil effect in insecurity of any class of property permitted by law. On the other hand, it is equally difficult to deny that when you have clashing interests, it is absolutely impossible to make a property secure, unless you have a large body, a large class of persons interested in the protection of the property. I am certain of this—that you will never secure any kind of property as to which there are conflicting interests and claims, and you will never adjust the relative rights where there are those contentions interests pressing acutely one against another, unless you have a vast number of persons interested in its protection. I do not believe you will ever do it upon abstract principles, however reasonable and right it may be to do it; and I do not think you will ever do it against a largely prevailing sentiment that wrong is done by the effort that you are making to secure it. That is to say, if a large class of persons believe that their rights and interests, where you are dealing with conflicting interests in property, are not duly safeguarded, you will find it very difficult to secure peace and contentment. Therefore, it seems to me that it is and must be expedient, and that it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to largely increase the number of owners of land in Ireland. You have had hitherto a very small number of owners in Ireland, you have had a very large number of tenants, and if you can by means of legislation such as this or in any other way bring about this result—namely, the creation of a large class of owners—you will be likely to get rid of many evils that now exist, and will do much to bring about peace and contentment in the country. It is because the Bid has that object in view that I regard it with satisfaction. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a detailed criticism of it to-night, because, of course, there will be subsequent
  1560
  opportunities of dealing with the different points. There are only one or two matters on which I will touch now. The noble and learned Lord who preceded me eulogised very much the form in which the Bill now comes before your Lordships, and in what I am going to say I do not mean to detract in the least from the compliments which have been paid to the Chief Secretary, who has been in charge of the Bill, and who, of course, is in the main responsible for it; but it would be only just to say that the Bill is not now in precisely the same state in which it was introduced, and I must say that I think it has gained by the criticisms passed upon it in the other House, and that the criticisms of the Irish Members have had no small part in the result. My noble and learned Friend opposite (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland) said that my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) behind me did not allude to the important part of the Bill that deals with the congested districts. I can assure him that was only one of those oversights which frequently happen. We frequently sit down without saying something we intended to say, and it often happens that the things one most particularly wishes to say have been omitted from one's speech. There is no doubt, my Lords, that that is a very important and interesting part of the Bill. Of course, it is only in the nature of an experiment, and I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend opposite that it is always extremely dangerous to prophesy as to the effect of any particular legislation, because, as he told my noble Friend Lord Kimberley, "you may prophesy anything." I shall remind him of that dictum some day when I may have again to listen, as I have listened, to prophecies which have fallen from his lips.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Did they not come true?
  LORD HERSCHELL: To say off-hand whether or how far they came true would be, I am afraid, a difficult task. Some which I remember have certainly not come true—some possibly have, which is about as much, I think, as any prophet can expect. I think, at any rate, that the Government are to be congratulated upon having made an attempt to deal with this difficult question of congested

  1561
  districts, and no one will more heartily rejoice if that attempt should prove successful than my noble Friend behind me and myself, and those who think with us. I should like, my Lords, to say one word with regard to the guarantee provisions, because I do not think the criticism of the noble Earl behind me was entirely met by what the noble and learned Lord said. His only answer to the objection of the noble Earl was that it was always unpleasant to be called upon to discharge a guarantee, but ordinarily speaking the person giving a guarantee has some direct personal interest, or some voice upon the question whether he shall give that guarantee or not; whereas in the present case Parliament is imposing a guarantee in which those who may hereafter be affected by it have no direct or immediate voice. What I should like to call attention to is that, however expedient it may be to safeguard the British taxpayer, which I do not dispute, there is a danger in having among your safeguards one which will press directly and immediately on individuals, and be levied upon them at a particular place, and the more so when it is felt that an unjust burden is being imposed. Under the system proposed by this Bill, as I understand it, if the purchasers of land in a particular county are in default, there may be a deficiency which will cause a burden immediately to fall upon that county. There may be a levy for that purpose, and, indeed, if there were not a levy there would have to be some kind of taxation imposed for that purpose. But upon whom would that levy fall? It would fall obviously on all throughout the county. But the persons who may be most anxious to purchase under this Bill, and who are aggrieved because they cannot purchase, because their landlords do not choose to sell, surely will feel very bitterly aggrieved if they are called upon to pay money to guarantee the British Exchequer against the default of the other tenants who have had the good fortune to purchase. That seems to me to be a distinct danger, because you are bringing a levy upon the individuals who have not been able to purchase, without their having received any sort of equivalent, because they had no opportunity of purchasing, that is to say, doing that which has resulted in the default of
  1562
  others. I do not think that it is a sufficient answer to say that any person who gives a guarantee finds it very unpleasant to be called upon to discharge it. It has been urged that there is no danger of this guarantee being required; but all guarantees are created in view of some danger and some possibility of having to fall back upon that guarantee. I am sure that we all should regret if any feeling of irritation or sense of injustice should he created by the imposition of burdens which are to safeguard the British Exchequer, and I do not suppose that there will be any enthusiasm on the part of the Irish people in favour of such a provision. I do not think their "noble instincts" would respond to a call to that extent. The only other provision of the Bill to which I should like to call attention is the 10th clause. I think that some such clause—in spite of what I admit to be considerable difficulties, and strong objections made to it—is really absolutely necessary when you look at what the object of the Bill is. Let me take an extreme case. Suppose in a particular district or county, or in all the counties, if you like, in Ireland, the whole of the money provided by this Bill went to the large tenants, and none to the smaller tenants, what would be the result? You would have this Imperial guarantee in the Bill, and you would be only turning a very small number of occupying tenants into owners of the land, and leaving the great mass of the tenants in their old position. That would be, of course, to fail in the very object you wish to bring about. I have put there an extreme case merely to test the principle. Therefore, it seems to me in accordance with sound principle to make some such provision. On the other hand, I quite agree that it would be inexpedient to tie the bonds too tight, and therefore there are provisions enabling the Land Commission—where it would impede the sale of the smaller as well as larger holdings, and so the disposal of the whole estate, to adhere to this rigid rule—to depart from it, and make relaxations which will enable the whole estate to be sold. In addition to that, there is a wider provision for relaxation, without that express limitation of course, vested in the Lord Lieutenant. I cannot help thinking that this clause is likely to

  1563
  work well, and that it will not have those mischievous effects which some noble Lords have predicted. I hope that in my criticism I have not departed from the spirit in which those who preceded me have spoken. In conclusion, I would only say that if I shared in the belief which has been expressed—that the agrarian difficulty was the only difficulty in Ireland, and that to settle the agrarian difficulty would be to settle the whole Irish question—I should regard this Bill with more enthusiasm than is the case, entertaining as I do a conviction of a different character. I am not going to enter upon the question of who is right or who is wrong in that matter; I own that I should be willing to see and to be a party to a larger measure, and one which would impose even greater risks in connection with the British Exchequer, if I could think that it were part of a scheme which would settle the whole Irish question, though I admit that it is right and proper to endeavour to settle the agrarian question. This, at least, I can honestly say—that, in so far as this measure is successful and leads to contentment and peace, frees the country from disturbance and disorder, settles men's minds and calms their passions, and brings about a better state of feeling, no one will rejoice more heartily than I do.
  *THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I listened with sincere admiration and with partial agreement to the powerful and eloquent speech delivered last night by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). I do not propose to follow his example by going into the past history of the Irish land question, or into a defence of the land system generally. If I were to indulge in retrospective criticism at all, it would only be to say this—that, so far as I have ever been able to learn, the real origin of Irish agrarian troubles has been far less in greediness on the one hand, or dishonestly on the other, than in the careless, easy-going, happy-go-lucky fashion in which for many generations tenants and landlords lived together in Ireland, without any attempt to fix or define their mutual obligations and rights. In the last century, over a large part of the country, estate were habitually let out to middlemen who did not pay a very high rent, but saved the landlord trouble. The
  1564
  middleman having only a terminable interest, cared nothing for what happened to the estates when his term expired, and consequently over large parts of the country the land was sub-let to a class of tenants little removed from paupers, and a great amount of mischief was done, which even to this day it has not been always possible to repair. We are paying the penalty now for evils which not so much the avarice and rapacity as the carelessness and neglect of former generations have brought about. Next, I would say that, however true it may be that we have pursued at different times an inconsistent and contradictory policy, whatever injustice may have been done now to one class and now to another, yet if you take the last 50 years you will find that the patient has suffered less from the differences between his doctors than might reasonably have been expected. Look at the result. We cannot say that the state of things in Ireland in 1890 is altogether satisfactory, but compare it with Ireland in 1840, as far as the condition of the people is concerned, and I will venture to say that no country in Europe has advanced so rapidly. You may ascribe that to what you please; yon may find what fault you will with the Parliamentary action of our time; but still, as a fact, the misery, the wretchedness which all of us can remember, have passed, or are passing away; and, therefore, while I certainly do not contend that we have any right to be proud of the past, so far as Ireland is concerned, I say that we have no cause to despair as to the future. To come to the immediate matter under discussion: there is one difficulty which I feel in defending the principle of this Bill, and that is the very serious one that it is not easy to defend what nobody has seriously attacked. As far as I can gather no one in this House has found fault with the principle upon which this Bill is based. All the objections which have been taken have been objections well worthy of consideration—often important, and perhaps in some cases valid—but they have all been objections taken on separate provisions of the Bill, and not to the general policy upon which it is based. I should have been surprised if it had been otherwise; because, however

  1565
  large this measure may be, yet in point of magnitude the Bill bears no comparison with the scheme brought forward by Mr. Gladstone in 1886, and I should, therefore, have been surprised if noble Lords behind me who were parties to that scheme had found any fault with the general principle of this measure. They have not done so, and I think it is manifest to all who heard them that their criticisms have been conceived and uttered in a fair and just and temperate spirit. Under these circumstances I almost hesitated to address your Lordships at all, but the policy which we are now adopting for the first time is novel, and, as no doubt great objections have been taken to it on various grounds by various persons outside this House, perhaps some few remarks, on the grounds of those objections, may not be entirely useless. That which has been most strongly urged, and not without force, is the danger, both from an economic and a social point of view in placing the State in the relation of creditor to many thousands of its citizens. It is urged that the lesson of repudiation is easily learned; that private interests and political disaffection will be equally concerned in leading the tenant owners to refuse payment, and that if any large body of them do so refuse, the State is powerless, because they cannot all be evicted. I think that I am stating the argument against the Bill fairly, and I do not deny its weight. But there is an answer to it. In the first place, what is our position now? We have regulated all Irish rents by law, and thereby we have given a double sanction, a double guarantee to those who receive them that they will be protected in their rights by the law. If a general rising against the repayment to the State is considered probable, the same state of feeling would create a general resistance to the payment of private rents and debts. In fact, as we know, it has already done so in many localities, though from various causes, not the least of which is the able administration of the Chief Secretary, the agitation has subsided. In the case of a general movement against the payment of private rent, although the pecuniary interest of the State may not be
  1566
  as directly concerned, its honour and duty are equally at stake. You cannot hold that so long as the national pocket is not touched it does not matter whether private obligations are observed or not. You are bound to enforce all reasonable contracts; and it is not shown, and cannot be shown, that a promise to pay is less valid in the hands of the Crown than in those of any private person. A general repudiation of debt not successfully resisted by the law would in any case be a dishonour to the State which allowed it, and, to my mind, the case is made very little worse when to that dishonour you add some pecuniary loss. But is any general repudiation to be apprehended? Remember that every year that passes makes the risk less and the position safer. When a purchasing tenant has held only for ten years, he will have already paid 20 per cent. of the value of his holding, and surely he will think twice, whatever pressure may be put upon him, before he runs the risk of losing that deposit and forfeiting his position; and the case is still stronger when you remember that these charges will begin and expire at different times. Tell a man who has wiped out half or nearly the whole of his payments that every debt is to be swept away at once, and it will not be very agreeable to him to hear that his neighbour, who has paid for one or two years only, is to be placed in exactly the same position as himself. Again, though I do not think that gratitude is a very strong factor in politics, or a feeling much to be relied upon, still it is difficult to suppose that political or national animosity will not be, at least, lessened by what is unquestionably an immense concession on the part of England. I put it in this way, if the Irish farmers are fairly well satisfied with the provision that is made for them, they will not rush into any general repudiation with a knowledge of all the trouble that will follow. If they are dissatisfied, they will at least have sense enough, one would suppose, not to adopt a method of showing their discontent, which will inevitably alienate the sympathies of the whole English people, because repudiation is a thing which the English mind can take in, and which cannot be misunderstood. I do not think, then, that there is any serious danger of

  1567
  a general refusal to repay. Losses in bad times there may be; some, I suppose, must be expected; but, if I understand the system proposed under this Bill, the outgoing tenant has always the power to sell his holding to another who may be better off, and in that case the losses incurred by the failure of the first tenant will be recovered, because they will be a first charge, and, if the outgoing tenant cannot pay, the purchaser will find the money. Now, a good deal has been said outside, and something has been said here, as to the inadequacy of the securities mentioned in the Bill. We are told that you could not withdraw grants for useful public purposes—grants for education, for pauper lunatics, and the like—under any circumstances. But I am not so sure of that. It would be a strong and a harsh measure, no doubt, and one which Parliament would be very unwilling to adopt; but if a whole community or district agreed to withhold from us what its members had previously freely agreed to pay, there would be no injustice in saying to them, "You shall not, until you return to a better mind, have the assistance which we habitually give you." Then it has been argued—and the noble and learned Lord who spoke last used the argument just now—that there is hardship involved in any proposal which throws the whole burden upon a district or county to make up the shortcomings of certain persons in it. Surely that is what continually occurs, and what must occur, because collective responsibility is a necessary incident of civilised society. Take it on a large scale: if a country gets into war, I may think the war rather foolish, but I must pay the war taxes resulting, however much I may disapprove the object. And, coming down to smaller matters, a man may possibly think his County Council or his Borough Council, as the case may be, are spending money foolishly and wastefully, but his thinking so does not save him from contributing to the rate. The case seems to me the same, and the very fact that the County or the District is made liable in this way is to my mind one of the surest means of creating a healthy public opinion in the matter. Men will become acutely conscious of the dishonesty of their neighbours when they find they are called upon to pay for it themselves. Now, my noble and learned
  1568
  Friend said it would be very hard on a man who wanted to buy, but had not been able to buy, and therefore had derived no benefit from the Act, should have to pay for those who had failed to make good their payments. All one can say as to that is that, if such a man has not succeeded in obtaining the application of the Act to his own case, he has not lost his chance in the future, and his reasonable disappointment would be much more likely to lead him to ask for an extension of the Act than to complain of the liability which he is under. But as far as I can see there is really not much chance or danger of these securities being called into play. If I understand the machinery of the insurance fund—I am not quite sure I do, for it is rather complicated—it ought to be sufficient to make up any ordinary deficit, and it is hardly likely that the other securities will be called into operation. I will not say that the other supplementary safeguards are put there rather for the purpose of creating confidence than with any idea that they will ever be brought into use. I will not say that; but I do say that I think the prospect of their being brought into play is very remote. My noble Friend, Lord Kimberley, undoubtedly made a point when he spoke of the difficulties which might arise in the case of exceptional agricultural distress, which is provided for in one clause of the Bill. He said, and I quite agree with him, that in such a case there would be a pressure to remit rents, that there might be a strong popular feeling on the subject, and that in such a case the Government might be placed in a difficulty. Well, I do not see how we can honestly or fairly deny that, and that seems to me to be the weak point, not only of this Bill, but of every Bill brought in having a similar object. I agree with him as to the danger, but I do not see the efficacy of the remedy which he suggests. My noble Friend, as I understand him, thinks we should be very much safer if between the State which is the creditor and the individual who has to pay some local Irish authority were interposed. I do not think that would make the slightest difference. Everybody would know that the real creditor is the British Government; it is to the British Government that they would appeal.; and it is upon us they

  1569
  would put the pressure for any relief they might require. Then I come to another criticism of which I think some echo has reached this House. It is further contended that the passage of this Bill will be fatal, or at least dangerous, to the landowners who are not directly affected by it, since, if it succeeds, the tenants throughout the country will press for a share in its advantages. As far as the landlords are concerned, setting aside the land which they keep in their own hands, their parks, domains, woods, and the like; and speaking only of that part which is in the hands of their tenants, I cannot see that they have much to lose. Tenants who have fixity of tenure and free sale are mere debtors; they are not in any sense dependent upon the landlord; they can hardly claim any help from him; and I do not think, apart from any possible money loss, that the loss incurred in parting with an Irish estate, the residence and domain being left untouched, is a loss which any owner would be likely to feel deeply. As regards the price given under the Bill it may be less than the owner would be able to obtain elsewhere, but if it is he is under no obligation to sell. By selling, no doubt he may and he will lose something in the way of income, but he will exchange what is probably one of the worst securities in the world for one of the best, and that change is certainly worth paying for. So far as I know, there has been no inclination on the part of any person sneaking with authority to make this Bill universal and compulsory. What may happen in the future, no one can foresee, but I do not think that because the State helps tenants to buy from willing landlords it follows that the State is in any way pledged to make other landlords to sell against their wish. There may be many persons no doubt who may wish for such an extension of the measure. I do not say it may not come in time, but the very heavy increase of liability on the part of the State, to say nothing of other considerations, will act as a deterrent. Then there is one fact which we cannot overlook, for it hes at the root of the whole question. Unluckily the majority of Irish landowners, as we all know, are owners only in name; it may not be, and generally is not, their own fault, but it
  1570
  is the fact that their estates are generally owned, in reality, by mortgagees, and in many cases they live upon the narrow margin between what they receive and what they have to pay. When men are in that position, and nobody will deny that the majority of Irish landlords are so situated, it seems to me that for their own sakes and that of the public they should welcome a change, and that the sooner they are helped out of that position the better. I listened with interest, and in the main with agreement, to my noble Friend's praise, or rather his vindication, last night, of the landlord system; but before his ideal can be even imperfectly realised, it is necessary that a landlord should be well-to-do, that his estate should be comparatively unencumbered; that, as a general rule, be should be resident; and that he should be more or less in sympathy with his tenantry. Where these conditions are fulfilled, a tenant will hardly care to buy any more than a landlord will wish to sell. But I am afraid these conditions are not and cannot be fulfilled on the majority of Irish estates. Granted that a good landlord is better to be where he is, there does not seem to me to be any reason why a man, whom poverty has made a bad landlord because he has not the means to fulfil the duties of the position he has inherited, should not be assisted to leave it and go away when he wishes it himself. Then the question has often been raised, and will be raised again, having this measure for a precedent, whether English and Scotch tenants have not the same claim upon the British Treasury as the Irish tenants, whether they will not claim the same kind of assistance. The only answer that need be given is that we will deal with that demand when it arises. We are paying off our old National Debt at a fairly rapid rate, and for my own part I see no objection in principle to using public credit, and even using it largely to help the tenants of Scotch or English landlords. But, in fact, the cases of the two countries are entirely different. English land finds fewer purchasers in many counties now than it did even 20 years ago, and not at the same price, but still it is saleable, and while it is so the necessity for interference does not arise, but no man in his senses would be a buyer of Irish land. Again,

  1571
  English farms are large by comparison with those of Ireland, and as a rule, though not invariably, the tenants do not belong to the class whom this Bill is intended to help in Ireland. We have to remember farther that Ireland has a special claim upon us, because it has been the subject of so much conflicting and sometimes violent legislation. It is perfectly true, as we were told yesterday, that we swept away one class of owners by the Encumbered Estates Act; that we deprived their successors of some of their legal rights in 1870, and of more in 1881. I am not referring to these matters controversially; I only state them as facts. There has been no such violent interference with English or Scotch property at any time, and therefore, there is not the same claim to relief. The chief risk incurred by the creation of these new proprietors is the risk that they will not cultivate the land themselves, but that they will follow the old Irish fashion and sublet or subdivide it. I cannot say that that apprehension is altogether unfounded. During the last 50 years Irish landowners have set their faces against this practice of subdividing, but even when they were resident and most attentive to their duties they have not been able to stop it; it has still been carried out in disguise and on various pretexts, and it is a question whether the State will be more fortunate in preventing subdivision than private owners have been. I cannot judge upon that point; but there is this to be said: that of course when a man feels that land is his own he will be careful not to do anything to lessen its value, for I quite agree that if these very small men become landlords they will be bad samples of the class, and the land will suffer; but my Irish friends tell me that as soon as a small tenant has acquired property in his farm the tenancy to subdivision is checked, and sons, instead of being planted on the father's holding, emigrate to the colonies or America. Emigration has become more popular, the tendency to sublet has become less in consequence. I hope, therefore, that danger is not so grave as many persons think it. There is one plea in favour of the policy of this Bill which I think deserves more notice than it has had. Everybody knows the vague and wild talk that is
  1572
  going about as to the municipalisation or the nationalisation of land; that is to say, taking it out of the hands of its private owners, and placing it in the hands of some public authority. I do not hold a peasant proprietary to be an absolutely ideal institution, but I am quite sure it is better than any communistic scheme of that kind; and I am also sure that a peasant proprietary is the strongest barrier you can set up against any such. A man who has 10 acres will fight for those 10 acres quite as earnestly as a man who has 1,000, and that to my mind is the chief use of this Bill. Now, my Lords, we shall discuss the clauses in Committee, and therefore I will mention only one, to which the noble Marquess opposite adverted last night. Upon that point, the question which is raised, as I understand it, comes to this—Are we or are we not to give a marked preference in dealing with applicants to small holders over large holders? It it contended, on the one hand, that small holders will not come forward unless an example is set them by those who are better off, and also that these latter are fitter for the position of owners. Upon the first point I think nobody can decide. Experience only can show whether the Act will be largely taken advantage of or not. If it be not, any difficulty as between the two classes will probably settle itself. If it be largely used, a further extension of the Act will be necessary in a few years, and then the whole matter may be reconsidered. I speak with some hesitation, but I should think our first object ought to be to extend the advantages of the Act to as many persons as possible, and to make the money advanced go as far as we can. Upon that ground it is reasonable to give a preference to the smaller tenants, who are less able than larger farmers to carry out purchase by other means outside this Act. I therefore incline to think that the decision of Mr. Balfour and the Government was the right one; but the matter will require careful consideration, and I reserve my final opinion until the matter has been discussed. These are all the observations with which it is necessary or desirable I should trouble your Lordships now. I cannot end with an appeal to you not to reject this Bill, because I know there is no one in this House who has the

  1573
  slightest desire it should be rejected; but it is our right and duty to scrutinise it thoroughly and minutely. At the same time it is desirable not, by any unnecessary alterations, to give opponents the opportunity of delaying or damaging this legislation elsewhere. It is almost the only measure dealing with Ireland, in my recollection, which has had the peculiar good fortune to receive the support of both parties. It is, I believe, accepted by all as an earnest, honest, and hopeful attempt to improve the condition of Ireland. Pinal it will not be, for nothing is final; but I agree with my noble Friend who spoke just now that, if you can put an end to agrarian agitation and discontent, you will have very little to fear from Irish agitation arising out of any other cause.
  *THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as this Bill has been received with a universal chorus of approbation, it seems rather superfluous that I should inflict any further observations upon it on your Lordships; and it is only the feeling that, if I abstained from doing so on a Bill of such importance, I might be thought to be disrespectful, that induces me to trouble you for a very few minutes. I think that one result of the discussion in this House will be to bring more clearly before the mind of the country what our object is in passing the Bill. A good deal of vague language has been used on the subject. People have talked of abolishing landlordism; even my noble Friend behind me talks of getting rid of dual ownership. These are not the objects of the Bill, nor is any hope entertained that they will be its results. Our object is to multiply proprietors of land in a country which, owing to a great variety of causes, has come into a thoroughly unhealthy condition, and which, without the support of a class in the highest sense Conservative, of a class which has a deep and ineradicable interest in the existing state of things, cannot come back to the healthy condition in which we all desire to see it. The Bill has for its purpose the multiplication of peasant proprietors; it has no more ambitious object than that. I should be very sorry if there was any probability of its abolishing landlordism. I should be
  1574
  glad if it should abolish dual ownership; but that could not be possible without changing the course of legislation which we have followed, and which has been so vigorously attacked and so vigorously defended in this debate, that it is, I think, unnecessary to make any further observations upon it. Our belief that the 10th clause will add to the stability and strength of social order in Ireland is founded upon a very wide experience. I think the noble Duke was hasty in saying, or seeming to say, as he did, that the relation of landlord and tenant was anything like universal throughout the world. There are vast districts in which peasant freeholders cultivating their own holdings are common, and I should have thought it was now one of the commonplaces of politics that where such a class exists it is a sheet-anchor of the social stability of the country. There is a phase in England of that stability which has often struck me, and which I have not often heard referred to—that is, the corresponding stability which has been conferred upon other kinds of property, upon personal property, by precisely the same process. If you look back to the Radical or revolutionary literature of the beginning of the century, you will see that one of the favourite objects of attack was the National Debt. There was nothing which they were so anxious to see applied as a political method as the instrument known as a sponge, and anybody studying the attacks at that time, and judging from the fear then expressed, would have imagined that personal property in the funds were in very great danger, and would certainly be the object of revolutionary attack. But if you look at even the most extreme revolutionary literature of the present day you will find that dogma has entirely disappeared. Even the writings of Mr. Henry George contain no proposal for municipalising or nationalising funded property. What is the cause of the change? I believe that it is to be found in the fact that the very simple operations of the Savings Banks and many similar institutions have given to a vast number of persons a direct interest in funded property and in the solvency of the State, and that that has been of incalculable value, not only in supporting that solvency, but in dissipating those wild doctrines for ever.

  1575
  Anybody who feels inclined to make such an attack now knows that he will have in front of him such a mass of moral and political force that no agitation could hope to overcome it. When we look at the condition of Ireland we desire to effect something in the nature of that change by placing such an obstacle before the wild and fantastic agitators with whom we have had to contend in recent times, and we trust that they will find themselves met by an obstacle in the attachment which every freeholder who lives on his land conceives for that land, and in the vigour which he will bring to bear to defend at any cost or sacrifice the property which he owns. If we look at that as the object of the Bill, I think it disposes of one or two of the most important objections which have been made to it. My noble Friend was very severe upon the 10th Clause. I am quite content to go into a discussion of the details of the 10th Clause, and to see whether there is any means of dispelling that apprehension of danger which is avowed; bat unless you do secure the result which the measure is intended to produce, namely, that the small tenants are admitted to the land as proprietors of holdings too small to be any temptation to them to let their land be cultivated by other people, you absolutely fail in your object. It is the policy of the 10th Clause to secure that object, and from that policy we must not depart. Then there was one objection of the noble and learned Lord opposite which has considerable strength, that our guarantees are unjust because we call upon the tenant who may not have purchased himself to bear the cost and burden of guaranteeing the instalments of another tenant who has purchased. Of course, if you look upon it as a matter of distributing favour among the tenants, it has an appearance of injustice; but if you look upon it as a great measure for securing peace and order and promoting industry and prosperity in Ireland, then the tenant who remains a tenant is just as much interested in that great object as the tenant whose continued solvency he is called upon to guarantee. The only other objection of importance to the Bill—it is a very multifold objection—is one which is derived from the great stringency of the guarantee. My noble Friend made a
  1576
  very powerful speech in that sense, and we have heard the same argument repeated in various forms. I am afraid that, to a certain extent, the conditions under which we had to work made such an objection inevitable. Just look at the history of the legislation on this subject. You began with the Bright Clauses. I remember them well, for I got into great disgrace with my own Party for supporting them; but the Bright Clauses entirely failed. You had put in too stringent precautions for the protection of British credit—with the result that landlords and tenants were deterred from taking advantage of them. Your next experience was the Ashbourne Acts. You fell there into the opposite extreme. I admire the Ashbourne Acts very much, and if we have been able to act without consideration of the support which we had, to obtain, I should have preferred nothing better than to go on with the Ashbourne Acts with very slight modifications, and I believe they would have solved the problem we had in view, but we had one consideration to deal with, and that was the feelings of the British taxpayer. It was quite evident when we came to the second Ashbourne Act that the British taxpayer was getting seriously frightened and it would have been impossible to go on with those Acts. We have had to steer between those two opposite dangers all through. On the one side there was the very great danger that we should be multiplying our precautions to such an extent as to afford the land-lords and tenants but little advantage, and on the other that we should be so seriously alarming the British taxpayer, that passing the Bill through Parliament would have been an impossibility. In this Bill we may have leaned too much on the side of security. I do not know whether it is so. It is, as has been repeated more than once during this Debate, impossible to prophesy, but I think it is the side to which we were bound to lean, because the House of Commons, as the great trustee of public money, was bound to be exceedingly jealous of the manner in which these vast sums were pledged and secured. Of course we had to defer to that feeling, and I cannot say that the feeling was unjust or unreasonable. If the conditions should be found to be too severe,

  1577
  there are in the Bill several elastic openings by which their stringency may be relieved.; but, after all, Parliament will not be abolished after this Session, and there is always an authority to come to if any intolerable evil is found to exist; but I think that having that alternative before us, and believing that by diminishing precautions we should frighten the British taxpayer and those who represent him in the House of Commons, the latter danger was the greater danger of the two, and the danger which we were bound to avoid. There was one other objection mentioned by the noble and learned Lord opposite. It was the only time it has been mentioned in this House, but it has done a good deal of duty on platforms and in the other House of Parliament. It is what I may call the "buffer" theory—that yon ought to have a "buffer" placed between the English State and the debtor who is to pay. I am bound to express my conviction that, as a rule, that class of argument rests upon an utter misconception of the situation. I have often wondered whether the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who use that argument ever ask themselves what purpose that "buffer" was to serve. It is the duty of the State to enforce contracts and to secure that debts should be paid. That duty does not become less stringent because the person who suffers does not happen to be the State. According to the argument, a buffer seems to be a thing you can simply throw over, and the security to State seems to be this: That if the State thought it convenient it could throw the creditor over without itself suffering in the process. I think that is an ignoble argument, and I do not think that would have increased the security of the debt. But I think the whole of that class of argument rests upon an utter misconception. The idea is that we are so weak, so feeble in force, that unless we coax and wheedle the Irish debtor into paying his debts we have no power to enforce payment. I utterly repudiate any such view of the strength of the English Government. There is abundance of strength and force; what is wanted is the mind and spirit to use it, and I welcome—I do not shrink from that contact between the State and the debtor—I welcome it as a more direct, more
  1578
  honest, and more practical state of things. The one thing that we want is that the English Government—I use the word in its largest sense, including Parliament—shall be forced by imperious considerations to do its duty and to measure out justice equally between man and man, not minding whether the process involves it in disagreeable conflicts and controversies or not. As long as the "buffer" exists, as long as the private creditor exists, or the intermediate municipal or local creditor, be it what it may, so long there will be the temptation to pass the duty over and not to take all the precautions or exercise all the vigour we can in order to compel justice to be done and contracts to be properly fulfilled. But I believe when the consideration presses upon the statesmen in this building that if they once allow the sanctity of this particular debt to be broken down, once allow it to be believed that, by agitation or by clamour, the Government can be forced to relax its claim to these instalments which are its due, they will see before them the prospect of so large a financial embarrassment that they will be forced into an activity, vigour, and clearness of decision which I am afraid during a long past has been wanting both to Parliament and the Government. Therefore I do not fear any danger in this respect. For my own part I believe that these debts will be paid, as they easily can be paid; and that when they can be paid the means will be found of securing that proper measures are taken in that regard. Nothing in our recent experience justifies us in believing that the Irish people are inclined to harbour a grudge against those who carry out what their consciences tell them to be just and right with consistency; on the contrary, I believe that the moral of the last few years is that those who enforce the law and enforce the performance of contracts win the real respect of the Irish people, and that there is no real danger whatever of this imaginary conspiracy of repudiation which has been brought forward as a bugbear against the pledging of Imperial credit, and the application of the remedies this Bill contains. Those are all the words it is necessary for me to say. All that I wish to put on record is that I am not looking forward to any

  1579
  gigantic revolution in the social structure, in the land arrangements, or in the agrarian condition of Ireland. We shall not abolish landlordism by this Bill, but I hope that we shall create a class who will conduce to the prosperity of the country, who will bring back law and order and that confidence which is wanting now, and restore that life to commerce and to industry which recent experience in Ireland has almost taken away.
  On Question that the word ["now"] stand part of the Question, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CADOGAN): Perhaps it will meet the convenience of the House that I should say I propose the House should go into Committee on the Bill on Thursday next.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 161.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Bill; Read and ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.