Sitting of 26 April 1892

QUESTIONS.

  STOLEN POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the public have suffered loss from the circulation of genuine postal order forms (said to have been stolen from a post office), but with forged postmaster's signature and date stamp of issuing office; whether, in this case, any compensation will be made to the innocent holders of these orders, who have given value for them; and whether any measures will be taken to prevent the perpetration of similar frauds in future?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: A small number of blank postal order forms were stolen from a post office in London in January last and by forgery of the kind described in the question were made to appear as if they were complete postal orders. Taking advantage of the readiness with which postal orders are accepted as currency, even where the regulations prescribed by Parliament have not been complied with, the thieves passed them off on tradesmen and others. Steps meanwhile had been taken to put all paying offices on their guard and in several cases where the forged orders were presented at post offices payment was refused. No doubt the immediate holders of the forged orders are innocent in the sense that they gave value for them; but in accepting them as currency, and that, too, from persons whom they did not know, they did so at their own risk, and of course the Department cannot be responsible for the consequences. Measures are being taken which will tend to prevent frauds of this kind in the future.

  THE VACCINATION COMMISSION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the
  1386
  Local Government Board when the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination will be printed and distributed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am informed that the Commission have made a preliminary Report, and I have no doubt it will be printed and distributed within a very short time.

  MICE PLAGUE IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the increasing discontent among agriculturists in the South of Scotland as to the "mice plague," and to the alleged urgent danger of sheep stock owing to the serious deterioration of hill pasture; whether he has considered the resolutions passed at a meeting at Moffat, on Saturday, 16th April, regretting the refusal of the Board of Agriculture to take action in the matter, and calling for "a more exhaustive and systematic inquiry"; and whether he will either cause such an inquiry to be set on foot without delay, or will introduce or support a Bill temporarily prohibiting the further destruction of birds of prey and vermin which have usually been found to keep mice down?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: My attention has been called again to the ravages of the mice plague in certain counties in Scotland, and during the holidays I have received further communications on the subject from my hon. Friends the Members for Lanarkshire and Kirkcudbright and from meetings of agriculturists in that part of Scotland. In deference to their representations I have directed a further inquiry to be made, although I am not sanguine as to our being able to add much to the information we possess already. With regard to the Bill suggested for the purpose of temporarily prohibiting the destruction of birds of prey and vermin, I apprehend that what is required is some remedy for the plague which should take immediate effect; whereas the operation of any such Bill could only be distant. I have no reason to

  1387
  believe, so far as I am at present informed, that the sudden appearance of the mice plague is due to the destruction of birds of prey and of vermin, which has been the practice for years. But if it is shown upon further inquiry that a remedy can be supplied either in that or any other direction by legislation, I should be prepared either to introduce or support any measures which promised to be effective for the purpose. I am perfectly sensible of the gravity of the situation in which sheep farmers in Scotland are placed by this plague, and the hon. Member may be assured that anything that can be done shall be done; but the difficulty at present is to devise any remedy which is likely to be adequate to the occasion.

  PROVISIONS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SIR E. HARLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report for the year 1891 of Her Majesty's Consul General at Havre, in which he states—
  "I have observed that much is being said of late, and a good deal of criticism passed, about the food and accommodation furnished to seamen. I cannot call to mind any complaints which have been made to me on the ground of bad food, and the few cases which have been brought to my notice have been where some article was given out during the voyage, with the result that a money compensation has been paid to the men in respect thereof;"
  and whether he has any reason to doubt the correctness of those statements; if not, whether he will encourage any further legislation on the subject of provisions at sea until such has been found desirable after full inquiry by, say, a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: My attention has been called to the Report referred to, and I see no reason to doubt that the extract quoted in the question of my hon. Friend correctly represents the experience of the Consul General at Havre, but the Consul General also admits that there are cases in which there is ground for complaint. I do not regard the absence of complaints
  1388
  at Havre as conclusive evidence of the good quality of the provisions supplied to all British ships, nor do I think it necessary to postpone legislation in order that such an inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests may be held.

  CORDITE SMOKELESS POWDER.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the patent for cordite smokeless powder is Specification No. 5614, A.D. 1889, "An improvement in the manufacture of explosives for ammunition"; and, if so, on what date the patent was assigned to him; on what date did he certify to the Comptroller his opinion that, in the interest of the Public Service, the particulars of the invention, and of the manner in which it is to be performed, should be kept secret; on what date was the complete specification left, and on what date was it accepted; in what foreign countries have Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar patented cordite; whether the foreign patents are secret or open; and to whom the profits of these foreign patents are to go?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The patent referred to relates to cordite, and was assigned to the Secretary of State on 24th June, 1890. On 28th June, 1890, the Secretary of State certified that it would be for the public advantage that the particulars of the invention should be kept secret; but he has since decided that such secrecy is not now necessary. The complete specification was left on 2nd April, 1889, and was accepted on 2nd July, 1889. I am not able to answer the last three paragraphs of the question.

  COUNTY COUNCIL POLLING PLACES.
  MR. BONSOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience arising from the uncertainty of the law as to whether a County Council has power to appoint a polling place for an Electoral Division outside the limits of that Division; and if he will state whether the County Council have any such power?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: There is, in my opinion, no uncertainty in the law. A polling place must be situated within the boundaries of the Division.
  MR. BONSOR: May I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill to remedy this inconvenience?
  MR. RITCHIE: I think it would be extremely hazardous for the Government to undertake to amend the Local Government Act this Session.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Ministers intending to advise Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament between the month of September and December of the present year, they contemplate bringing in a Bill to enable all persons being qualified after July next to vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The contingency to which the hon. Gentleman refers is remote and uncertain, and the Government have not thought it necessary to consider if any, and what, steps should be taken in the event of such a contingency arising.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that if such a contingency does occur the Government will act in such a manner as I suggest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman can hardly make that deduction from what I have said.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he intends to name the Committee upon Parliamentary Reporting that he promised would be nominated after Easter; and whether he has considered the advisability of appointing a Joint Committee of both Houses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may take the Question as indicating a desire on the part of the hon. Member or of other Members for the appointment of such a Committee [Mr. LABOUCHERE assented] I will, of course, in
  1390
  consonance with the promise I gave, appoint the Committee. I think that the further suggestion contained in the second paragraph of the question—namely, that the Committee should be a joint one of both Houses, is well worthy of consideration; but I can hardly give an answer until next week, when the House of Lords meets again. Meantime I will consider the matter.

  BUSINESS ON THURSDAY.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury can now inform the House what is to be the business on Thursday next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first Bill to be set down for consideration will be the Clergy Discipline Bill.

  PERSIAN TOBACCO MONOPOLY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all Correspondence that has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Directors of the Tobacco Concession Company in Persia, between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran, and between Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran and the Persian Government, in regard to the indemnity to be paid to the Company in consequence of the abrogation of the concession; whether he is in a position to state who were the persons who obtained the tobacco concession, and what they paid for it; whether they sold this concession to the Company now claiming compensation for £300,000; and whether this £300,000 is included in the amount of compensation which Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran urged the Persian Government to pay to the Company on abrogating the concession?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,: The Papers referred to are being prepared, and will be laid when the communications, which are now passing with the Persian Government, are closed. The concession was obtained, as Her Majesty's Government were informed, from the Persian Government by Major Talbot, but

  1391
  without the intervention of Her Majesty's Government, or their knowledge. They have no information as to the amount paid for it. Her Majesty's Government are informed that it was transferred to the Imperial Tobacco Corporation of Persia for the sum of £300,000. The Papers, when presented, will show the action taken by Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran, which has been directed to an attempt to bring about an amicable solution of the difficulty.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we may expect these Papers?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have said they will be laid on the Table as soon as negotiations now passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Persian Government have arrived at a definite result, but when that will be I cannot say; very shortly, I think.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we to understand that the presentation of these Papers is to be deferred until the Persian Government have paid this sum of money?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No, I did not say that, I said until the negotiations have arrived at some definite issue.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR), INSPECTORS' REPORT.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the President of the Board of Trade say if he will grant the Return in reference to the hours of labour of railway servants, notice of which I have on the Paper?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It really amounts to a collection of extracts from Papers already laid before the House; but I have no objection if the hon. Member presses it.
  MR. CHANNING: I will move for the Return now.
  Return ordered—
  "Of all instances in which the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, in their Reports on Railway Accidents inquired into by them since and including the year 1884, have represented that the hours of any of the railway servants on duty on the occasion of such accidents have been unduly long, stating the name, date, and nature of such accidents, and the Railway or Railways on which they occurred, and giving in full the Passages in such Reports relating to such unduly long Hours.—(Mr. Channing.)

  THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to finish the Committee on the Indian Councils Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true the Committee discussion of the Bill was not actually finished last night; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, practically all the controversial part of the Bill was concluded, and I hope the Bill will pass through Committee in a few minutes this or next week. It is but the fag end of the Bill that remains to be disposed of, but I cannot pledge myself now as to when it will be taken.

MOTIONS.

  COAST COMMUNICATIONS.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: In bringing forward the Motion which stands in my name in reference to coast communication, I do not think the House will expect from me any apology for taking up a short time with the explanation of such a subject, nor do I think the House will turn a deaf ear to the appeal I make on behalf of the seafaring interests for the better protection of life and property around the coasts of the United Kingdom. It may be thought that in consequence of the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury to a question I put to him a short time since, there is no necessity for me to bring forward this matter; but I think it will be more satisfactory if it is formally dealt with by the House after a short debate, on which both sides may have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposals I have to make. It will, I think, be a matter of astonishment to everybody, both in the House and outside, when we consider the fact that England is so far behindhand in regard to this question of the protection of life and property at sea by means which have been adopted in many other maritime countries. We occupy the proud position of being the first maritime Power in the world; more shipping comes to the ports around our coasts than to any other part of the world, and it is matter of wonder that we have so long delayed this matter, and have taken no steps

  1393
  to bring it to a final conclusion. I do not desire for a moment to condemn any Government that they have not taken up this question before this, but inasmuch as every disaster that has taken place around our coasts, where there has been loss of life, must be the subject of official inquiry, a melancholy long list of disasters pigeon-holed at the Board of Trade, must be in existence, and it would be a matter of public interest if it were known, which it probably never will be, to what extent the Board of Trade officials have brought pressure to bear upon various Presidents of the Board, Urging that steps should be taken to bring this matter before Parliament. We boast over and over again of the extent of our Mercantile Marine, and we are justly proud of being the ocean carriers for the world. Each year we show the growth of our shipping tonnage; but as regards protection from loss of life in the seas around our coasts we show no progress. Whether it is due to one Department or another—the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, or the Post Office—this question has been shunted from one Department to the other, and no action has been taken. One Department under the Board of Trade has, I think, acted as a convenient buffer for that Department—Trinity House. They have been handicapped to a very great extent by not being supported by Parliament in a liberal way, and what might have been done in the past in regard to communication with light vessels and out-lying lighthouses has been checked by the action of the Treasury. In the result, we occupy a humiliating and unfortunate position, having to admit to the world that while little Denmark, with an import and export trade of 30 millions, has long since successfully dealt with this question of coast communication, and other maritime nations have done much in the same direction, Great Britain, with its annual import and export trade of £743,000,000 sterling, has done but little. The House will see that in the Motion to which I invite attention I have divided the subject into two parts: I have dealt with coast communication proper, and also with the question of cable communication between light vessels and outlying rock
  1394
  lighthouses and the shore. Inasmuch as the latter question has already been partially dealt with, or at all events experiments have been carried out from time to time, I prefer to deal with this part of my subject first. What I ask for in regard to floating light vessels and outlying lighthouses involves engineering and financial questions, and these should in the first instance be dealt with by a Royal Commission. But as regards the practicability of carrying out a system of cable communication with floating light vessels that has been absolutely proved, has been shown to be absolutely feasible by the experiments off the coast of Essex by cable communication with the Sunk lightship. Communication with this vessel was established in 1884, and in 1887 the then President of the Board of Trade appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question whether or not it was desirable to continue this cable communication with the sunk light vessel, whether it was likely to lead to the preservation of life, and into various other matters connected therewith. I served on that Committee, together with the late Colonel King-Harman, who, as Member for the Isle of Thanet, naturally took a deep interest in questions concerning the preservation of life at sea in connection with the dangers of the Goodwin Sands. We unfortunately found ourselves in a hopeless minority on that Departmental Committee; the Board of Trade opinion was all-powerful, and we were swamped. I regret that I felt obliged, when we came to consider the final Report in 1889, to draw up, and, after Colonel King-Harman's death, to sign, a Minority Report, because the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the Committee was that, inasmuch as there had been a considerable amount of money expended, and there had been little result in the saving of life, it was not desirable that the expenditure should be continued. I have never for a moment regretted that I signed a Minority Report in which I strongly declared my opinion that the experiment ought to be continued over another five years, and that Parliament ought to vote a further and adequate sum for such experimeuts. As a matter

  1395
  of fact, during the trial there had been no severe gales of wind at all, it was proved beyond doubt that there had been exceptionally few disasters on the sands adjacent to the Sunk light. The Trinity Corporation were adverse to the continuation, because they felt that the money devoted to this cable communication would be better expended in lighting dangerous sands around our coasts, and one fact which came out in evidence might possibly have influenced the Trinity Corporation. On one occasion, soon after cable communication was established between the Sunk light and the shore, the official in charge of the Sunk light was hailed by a passing vessel the master of which desired to send a communication to land. He came very near the light vessel, and the Brethren felt that the lightship was in some danger; but the Elder Brethren were slightly shocked by the communication the master of the homeward bound vessel desired to send. The captain was a newly married man, and he asked the officer in charge of the light vessel to communicate to the shore a message for his wife that he was safe and sound and would be in port in a few hours. Well, the Trinity Corporation were, as I have just stated, shocked, and this incident, I believe, had some influence in bringing about the unfortunate Report of 1889, which led to the stoppage of the communication between the Sunk lightship and the land. The feasibility of keeping up such communication has been proved beyond doubt. It was proved that the men in charge of the light vessel were perfectly capable of working the cable communication while they could undertake the splicing of the cable and other repairs, and I know, having been on board the Sunk lightship, that it is as easy to communicate through the telephone to the shore as it is to speak through the telephone any where on land. As regards whether or not it is better for the preservation of life that there should be cable communication, I have only to point out that in the case of snow-storms or fogs, when rockets are not able to be seen from the mainland, the officer in charge of the light-vessel can telephone the exact position of any vessel in distress, and thus put
  1396
  a stop to that which has almost always been the case when a lifeboat goes out in response to a signal of distress, so that they will be able to go direct to the vessel in distress, instead of going to the lightvessel and asking where the vessel is, and probably to be informed that they heard the guns firing from a certain direction, or that they saw rockets in such a direction; and that delay is of the most serious consequence as regards the lifeboat service. I might, in passing, just quote some extracts from telephonic messages which were received on the mainland through the Sunk cable as reported to the Committee of the Board of Trade, the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. On 7th September, 1886, a message was received at Walton, in Essex, from Sunk lightship, by telephone that a
  "Vessel was ashore on the South-West part of Long Sand, or on Kentish Knock."
  On 17th April, 1887—
  "Signals of distress seen on the North-East part Long Sand or Sunk."
  On 24th September, 1887—
  "A schooner in distress on Long Sand bearing S. by W., a little westerly."
  On 24th June, 1888—
  "Can hear guns firing in direction of 'Knock.'"
  On 22nd March, 1889—
  "Barque ashore on lower part of 'Sunk,' bearing South-South-West."
  On 16th May, 1889—
  "Guns firing at five minutes interval in direction of 'Shipwash.'"
  Now I quote the case of a vessel that was lost only last week, on Easter Monday morning. It was off my own coast of Norfolk, eight miles from the shore on the north-west part of the coast, on some sands known as Burnham Flats. The vessel came from the Baltic. It was seen by the lifeboat crew at six o'clock in the morning; the lifeboat was launched, but it had eight miles to go against a gale of wind and a heavy sea. If there had been telegraphic or telephonic communication with the Coastguard it could have been communicated to the Lincolnshire coast at a place called Skegness; and the lifeboat might

  1397
  have been able to go off to the exact spot with a fair wind, and would have saved at least three hours, and in all probability might have saved seven lives that were unfortunately lost out of a crew of eight. Bearing upon this question of communication with lightships, I have only to remind the House of the unfortunate case of the German emigrant ship Deutschland, that was wrecked on the Kentish Knock, 24 miles from the Essex coast, in thick weather. The total crew and passengers numbered 230 men, and of these 173 were saved by the Harwich tug boat, and 57 were lost. The vessel stranded on the northeast of the Kentish Knock at six o'clock in the morning of the 6th December. Guns and signals of distress were at once fired, but they were not seen from the Kentish Knock for three and a-half hours. These signals were not observed on the Sunk lightvessel, 13 miles distant, till 5.30 in the evening; and the Cork lightvessel had the intelligence conveyed to Harwich, five miles distant, which it reached at 7.30 in the evening, 13 hours after the vessel had been wrecked. The lifeboat from Broadstairs arrived too late to save any of these 57 lives. Had there been cable communication in that case, undoubtedly they might have been saved. Then we have the case of the Indian Chief, which was wrecked on the 5th January, 1881, on another well-known sand, the Long Sands, 18 miles from the coast of Essex. The crew numbered 29; there were twelve saved by the Ramsgate lifeboat, but 17 were drowned. That is another case where there was a very long delay indeed. I think it was something like 28 hours before the Ramsgate lifeboat arrived at the scene of the wreck. And now we come to a case of a far later date. On the 11th of December of last year the steamship Enterkin of Glasgow was wrecked on the Galloper Sands, 25 miles from the Essex coast and 30 miles from Ramsgate. Out of a crew of 30 there were 27 lost; one was saved by a Ramsgate smack, and two by a passing vessel. Here again the vessel was wrecked at 5 o'clock in the evening. The poor unfortunate crew were lashed to the rigging; and it was not till 3 o'clock the next morning that
  1398
  a fishing boat, Britons' Pride, passed the wreck and saved one hand; at 7.30 o'clock the other two were saved by a passing vessel. There are numbers of such cases; but there is no necessity for me to refer to more than these three. As regards what lightvessels ought to be placed in telegraphic communication with the mainland, that is a matter for a Royal Commission to inquire into and consider; and also the rock lighthouses. Undoubtedly the Fastnet, the Tuscar, the Eddystone, the Bishop, and the Bull Rock are all points of very great importance as regards the saving of life. Of course I might be told that in the case of the Fastnet, where communication was made and was in existence for a short time, but ultimately broke down, that it would be very difficult and very expensive to carry it out; still, the Engineers' Reports and the evidence given before the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade show that it would be perfectly possible to carry out the work there and to carry a cable down below where the wash of the waves would be liable to break the cable, and that there is no difficulty whatever, in an engineering point of view, in carrying out this work. Now, coming to the question of coast communication proper, I take up that on behalf of two great life-saving services—the Lifeboat Service and the Rocket Apparatus Service. Everyone who is engaged in the lifeboat service, whatever the crews may be, are only too ready to risk their own lives, if there is the remotest chance of saving the lives of those who are in danger; and nobody regrets more than the lifeboat crews when they come ashore after a fruitless errand, and have been told that had they received earlier communication they could have undoubtedly saved lives. And it too often occurs that when a lifeboat or a rocket apparatus has got to the spot where a wreck has taken place they only find pieces of the wreck left, and possibly the dead bodies of the poor crew, who might have been saved, and are being washed on shore. All that the lifeboat crews and the men in charge of rocket apparatus ask for is that there should be as rapid and instantaneous communication as possible

  1399
  with the mainland. There are so many cases where these two services have been sent for either by messengers on foot or on horseback; but in the case of inquiries where loss of life has taken place it has been proved that a foot messenger, or even a messenger on horseback, would not have been able to give the information in time. One well-known case bearing upon this subject is that of the steamship Lymington, which was lost in February, 1889, at Lee, not 30 miles from the Hartland quay on the North Coast of Devon, simply from the want of wire between the Morthoe and Ilfracombe Coastguard stations and the Bull Point lighthouse. At the Coroner's inquest, which took place, the following evidence was given:—
  "Williams, a boatman, was on the cliffs shouting to the crew. He was there from 12 to about 3.20 a.m. Words of encouragement were shouted, and the crew seemed hopeful and quiet until they found the tide was overtaking them, then their shouts became more frequent; as the tide advanced they increased their calls for help and entreaties for assistance. Each time they were told to keep up hope, as help was coming. When the tide was probably up to their feet, and they knew their vessel must soon break up, their cries became agonising, and as many as four distinct voices, some more powerful and pleading than others, were heard. At last the sea had reached its height, and about 3.15 a.m. a crash and screams were heard, and all was silent. Hours of agony and their lives might have been saved but for the delay of the rocket apparatus, which for want of wire communication only arrived on the spot after the ship had broken up without a single soul upon her reaching the shore alive."
  Then there is the well-known case of the s.s. Schiller, that was wrecked so far back as the 7th May, 1875, on the Retarrier Rocks, three quarters of a mile E.S.E. of the Bishop Light, five miles West of St. Agnes Island. In that case out of 364 passengers only 44 were saved, by shore boats from St. Agnes, and 320 were drowned. It was proved at the Coroner's inquest that had there been cable communication in all probability all the lives lost in that disaster might have been rescued by the lifeboats and other means. I need hardly say, as regards the Lifeboat Institution, there have been cases where as many as six lifeboats have gone out to one signal of distress. Had there been cable communication from the adjoining
  1400
  lightvessels probably only one lifeboat need have gone out, and the other five lifeboats and their crews need not have run the risk which they naturally run whenever they do go out. I do not mean to say, in stating that, that the Lifeboat Institution desires for one moment to stop men from going out whenever there is a case of a vessel in distress; but, nevertheless, if there were means of communication between the lightvessels there would be over and over again cases of telegrams to adjoining lifeboat stations giving the information that there was no necessity for the adjoining lifeboats to launch, because one had already gone out to the vessel in distress. But then we have another aspect of this matter to consider, and that is the case of where a steamer or vessel is passing some well-known headland and she is sighted by the lighthouse authorities. She is seen to be in distress; she drives before a gale of wind and is approaching nearer and nearer to the shore, and it is too late to get the adjacent lifeboat out, because the vessel will be driven far beyond their reach by the time the lifeboat is launched. But I am quite certain that if there was a wire to inform a lifeboat station or rocket apparatus ten miles off, the lifeboat there would be prepared to launch and would meet this vessel so driving before the gale of wind; or there might be a telegraphic or telephonic message sent ordering one or more tugs from some adjacent port to proceed to sea and save the vessel. There are numbers of cases off the coast of South Wales where vessels have been lost, and where the crews might have been saved had there been an opportunity of communicating by wire with the tugs to go out and tow them in. In a commercial point of view undoubtedly it has been proved over and over again that there might have been a vast amount of property saved if this coast communication was in existence around our shores. I can quote one case which I saw myself. One of the North German Lloyd's steamers, the Werra, was passing down the Channel one Sunday morning. It ran aground at Dungeness, about a quarter of a mile inside the point. It had over 600 passengers

  1401
  and crew on board. It was perfectly smooth, I admit; and as I was going down the Channel in a yacht we lowered a boat and asked the captain if we could render any assistance. He stated that he ran aground about 10.30 in the morning. He sent a boat ashore at once in order to telegraph for assistance. He was told by the authorities that the office had been closed at 10 o'clock, and would not be open again till Monday morning. He asked us then to proceed down Channel to Hastings where we sent off a telegram to the post office asking for tug boats to come to his rescue. The vessel was ultimately got off as the weather was smooth, or else undoubtedly she would have been lost. In the case of the Eida, which ran aground this last winter on the South of the Isle of Wight, there was no means of sending information except on horseback some distance inland to the telegraph office, and when the captain signalled at seven o'clock in the morning for the lifeboat to proceed to his assistance the crew of the lifeboat at once launched; but a messenger had to go off on foot—I think in one case on horseback—to ask the two adjacent lifeboats to come to their assistance. That is another case where, in a commercial point of view, it is absolutely important that there should be instantaneous communication. Then at Lundy Island there was cable communication, but, unfortunately, it was laid across the tide, and was broken, and has never been repaired, but it was proved that there is no difficulty whatever in the way of its being properly laid. A French steamship, Tunisie, ran aground this winter on the 19th February, 1892, at Lundy Island in a snowstorm on a Friday morning, and it was not known on the mainland till the Sunday; though I am bound to admit that all the lives were saved bylines thrown from the cliff in that case. But, in a commercial point of view, there was no power to communicate with the mainland as regards that disaster till the Sunday. I hope there are some hon. Members representing the Naval Service here who will admit the great importance of this question from a Naval point of view. When his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh terminated his duty at the Naval
  1402
  Reserve Office he wrote a very important Despatch, calling attention to the absolute necessity of having coast communication between all Coastguard stations around the coast of the United Kingdom; and I am glad to think that the present First Lord of the Admiralty during the last few years has added, I think, upwards of 100 stations to the 50 that were in existence prior to his term of office. But though the Admiralty can boast of 150 stations at the present time that are in telegraphic communication, I think they must admit that it is only during the naval manœuvres that there is communication open day and night and on Sunday; and that during the rest of the year this communication is only open from eight in the morning till eight in the evening, and two hours on Sundays. The House will remember the case of Her Majesty's ship Banterer when coming from Ireland to Plymouth in a gale of wind took refuge under Lundy Island. There was consternation that no intelligence was received of her whereabouts, and two or three vessels were immediately ordered to proceed from Plymouth to her assistance. Had there been communication between Lundy Island and the mainland the Naval Authorities would have known at once where she was. I contend very strongly indeed that coast communication is of the utmost value, whether it is for the saving of life or property, whether it is for the shipping interest or the commercial interest, for naval warfare, for salvage purposes, or for the fishing industry. It also seems surprising that the warnings from the Meteorological Society's Office in London at the present time are only sent out to 166 lifeboat stations, and that there are 105 stations that never receive any warning at all. The House will ask, what do other countries do? I have referred to Denmark. Denmark has certainly set a bright example to England, and I should like to quote a letter that came before the Board of Trade Departmental Committee from Denmark, giving an exact account of what Denmark has done. Briefly speaking, it is stated that this system was commenced in 1889:—
  "There are four stations for communicating with passing vessels—Hawtholm, Hortshols,

  1403
  Skagen (the Scaw), Hammoren (Bornholm). But besides this, there is a great part of our lighthouses and of the saving stations (lifeboat and rocket) connected with our common telegraph system, partly with the view of calling help to ships in peril, partly for communication between fishers and their markets, and partly used in the interest of our service, giving notice of ice, so that we can wait to the last moment, sending tugboats to tug in our lightships, to tell if lightships and buoys are not at their due place, and if gas buoys do not burn well, &c., &c. … We have no cable connection with any lightship. On the other hand, our most isolated island lighthouses are connected with the telegraph system… Where there is no telegraph station near the lifeboat or rocket stations these are generally connected with the nearest telegraph station, or with each other by telephone wires. By this means we are nearly able to follow a ship in danger of being set on shore by a storm, and the lifeboats and the rockets can be in place nearly at the moment of the running on shore. Steamers can be called to a ship that has been run on shore, and this ship can then often be taken off shore again before the sea rises and breaks it down."
  Then, as regards America, America has done a great deal more than probably the House has any idea of in a certain quarter. I am now quoting from a letter addressed to the Chief Inspector of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution by the General Superintendent of the United States Life Saving Service, dated 26th May, 1890. There are 56 lighthouses connected in the Gulf of the Lower St. Lawrence. He states—
  "Many notable instances of the saving of life have occurred on the coast of the United States, one of the most remarkable being at the Lewes Station, at the entrance to Delaware Bay, on 10th and 11th of September, 1889, when the keeper by summoning to his aid the crews of the two nearest stations was able to rescue, without the loss of a single life, the crews of 22 vessels, an aggregate of 194 souls. Had not the telephone been used it is likely that for the want of the early presence of the neighbouring crews many lives would have been lost. The resources of the three stations were employed to the utmost, and nearly all the hawsers, lines, and other movable gear were used up. Another advantage of the telephone is that it enables a station to warn others along the line of the approach of vessels that seem likely to go ashore in their neighbourhood. It often occurs that a vessel may be seen driving past a station and beyond the reach of its crew in a manner indicating that she is likely to strand some ten or 15 miles away. By timely warning the crews in the chain can be on the ground ready to begin operations as soon as she comes within reach, thus saving valuable time and increasing the chances of successful work."
  1404
  Then Holland has had since 1885 the whole of her lighthouses connected with the mainland by wire. At the Cape we have five lighthouses in telegraphic communication, and the Indian Government have carried out the same system. I could go, if necessary, through a number of cases of the most disastrous loss of life around the coast of the United Kingdom, in which telegraphic or telephonic communication would undoubtedly have been the means of saving a great many lives. I think it is only right to say that when the London and North-Western Railway Company were applied to by the Lifeboat Institution to allow their telegraph wires to be used on the North Coast of Wales, in the case of any vessel being seen in distress, they at once assented, stating that their stationmasters had been given orders to immediately communicate in such cases with the Lifeboat Institution, and the Board of Trade. In 1887 the Superintendent of Lloyd's gave evidence before the Board of Trade Committee to the effect that a number of their signalling stations had been the means of saving lives. The Deputy Master of the Trinity Corporation, Captain Sir Sydney Webb, gave important evidence before the subcommittee of the Lifeboat Institution. He was asked—
  "Supposing a large steam vessel were in distress in a fog in the vicinity of one of your lighthouses, and the lighthouse keeper knew the lifeboat station was about a mile off, and that probably lives would be lost unless the authorities were warned, and the boat sent out in time, would your man run down one mile to the lifeboat station to warn them?"
  His answer was—
  "Certainly; a messenger would be sent."
  He was then asked—
  "If the vessel was seen to be in a sinking condition, and passing the point, and there were telegraphic or telephonic communication, there would not be any great difficulty in warning the lifeboat by this means?"
  His reply was—
  "No; certainly not."
  The third question put to the witness was—
  "And if the man were paid by the lifeboat authorities a certain amount as a reward for

  1405
  giving this notice, the objection would be in great measure removed?"
  His reply was—
  "Certainly."
  We therefore have it on the high authority of the Deputy Master of the Trinity Corporation that where a lighthouse is situated at a point likely to give intelligence with regard to a vessel in distress there is no reason why one of the hands belonging to the lighthouse should not immediately telephone to the nearest coastguard station to that effect. The House, of course, realises that at the present time the telegraphic offices around our coast are open only from eight in the morning till eight at night, and on Sunday mornings from eight till ten o'clock; and it is obvious that in order to make postal communication effective it is absolutely necessary that they should be open the entire 24 hours, every day and night of the week, as well as on Sundays. Surely it would be no hardship to have an alarm bell placed in the bedroom of the local postmaster, for it would be perhaps only once or twice in a year that he would be called upon to leave his bed and to proceed to the lifeboat or the coastguard station to see that they had notice that a vessel was in danger. The system of communication round the coast ought to be made as effective as it is in London with regard to the fire-escapes. There is no necessity for going into further details in regard to this matter, because the need for such communication is perfectly clear. Whether it would cost £50,000 or £100,000, or £200,000, should not be considered when it is a question of the preservation of life and property. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a deficit next year he could lay the whole blame on the cost of such a scheme, and I do not think the country would mind it. The unfortunate British sailor looks to the House of Commons to provide further means for the saving of life round our coast. He very seldom has the opportunity of recording his vote at elections, but he thinks a great deal about what is being done in Parliament for his safety when in a gale of wind he has some dangerous sand bank under his lee, or some rock-bound coast on which
  1406
  he may be wrecked. I have not referred to the large number of lives that have been lost on our coast, because anyone can see the statistics for himself; but the number is very large, and I consider it is the duty of the House to do what it can to prevent such loss. I know that the fishing industry are looking forward with very great interest to what the House will do in regard to this matter. From a commercial point of view, the question is one of very great importance. Sixty-six Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions in favour of providing such communication, and I have not heard one voice raised against it. Therefore, I trust that the House will come to a unanimous conclusion in favour of this proposal, and that we shall let the maritime population of this country, as well as that of other Powers, know that the House of Commons has come to the determination to put an end as far as possible to the awful tragedies and harrowing scenes which are too often witnessed around the coast of England. I am sure that our gallant seamen, of whom we are so proud, will be thankful to the House if it passes this Resolution. It is only fair to say that a great amount of credit is due to those gentlemen who have assisted to bring this matter before the country. I hope that hon. Members have read the stirring articles which have appeared in the Times newspaper from the pen of a special commissioner who went round certain parts of the coast for the purpose of obtaining information on the subject. The House will not expect me to say anything further in support of the Resolution. I will only say that I hope the House will put an end to what I must call a grave scandal, and that it will adopt the course I have proposed. I beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The speech of the hon. Member in moving his Resolution has made my task in seconding it both an easy and a difficult one. He has made it easy, because he has so ably stated his case and so admirably marshalled the facts upon which he relies, and no one is more capable of dealing with the question than he is, because of his practical knowledge with all maritime matters,

  1407
  and because of his connection with that unique institution—the National Lifeboat Institution—of which I mayalmost say he is the leading spirit. He has made my task a difficult one, because of the thoroughness of the manner in which he has urged the claimant's necessity for the reform he advocates, and it seems to me that I should be only injuring a good cause if I were to tell a twice told tale in seconding the Resolution. The arguments in favour of the reform advocated by my hon. Friend, indisputable though I believe them to be, self-evident as they must be even to the most careless consideration, nevertheless lie within a narrow compass. I need not go into details with regard to disasters which might have been prevented or mitigated if the scheme which is now recommended had been adopted. Prompt and instant action is just as necessary to cope with the necessities for rescue of life and property from the winds and waves as it is to provide protection against fire. What would be thought of a fire brigade which was not connected with its various stations by the very latest appliances of electrical science? The Parliamentary Representatives of this great maritime nation have the right to claim from the Imperial Government a care for the life and property borne on the seas around our coasts not inferior to that required by any great city from its Municipal Governors for protection against fire. We are the greatest maritime nation in the world. We assert our Navy is, or should be, the match for any combination of foreign Navies likely to be brought against us. Our export and import trade amount to the enormous sum of £750,000,000. We lie in the track of the great seaborne carrying trade of the North of Europe. We are also in the midst of the very best and most profitable fishing ground in the world. Day and night crowds of fishing boats go out to reap the harvest of the sea. How is it, then, that our Navy, Mercantile Marine, and fishing fleets are required to incur risks which might be materially modified by taking advantage of the appliances of modern science? Is the explanation to be found in a sublime confidence in the
  1408
  "Sweet little cherub that sits up aloft
  To keep watch o'er the life of poor Jack"?
  Or is the fact that nothing is done due to a jealous rivalry between the Admiralty, the War Department, Trinity House, and the Post Office? Or is it the Treasury which is responsible for this sordid economy? Which risks the ship for want of a "ha'porth of tar"? It is worthy of consideration that this country is behind almost every other country in the world in respect of telegraphic and telephonic communication. What is the reason for this backwardness? Is it because the telegraph and telephone systems are a great monopoly? Is it the dead hand of this great Government monopoly that has stifled our system of telephonic communication and has prevented the extension of the system all along the coasts? Nothing could be more useful for the commerce of this country and for defensive purposes than to have around our coasts a series of closely connected stations from which information could be sent from our ships inland or from the land to the sea. We possess many great advantages for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Resolution. We have a splendid system of lights; the coasts are studded with lighthouses, and we have coastguard stations girdling the land, the average distance between them being only about ten miles. We have a splendid lifeboat service, and our lifeboat men, lighthouse and coastguard men, are only too anxious to undertake any duty that may be imposed upon them; and yet for the want of a little organisation, of a little energy in availing ourselves of the discoveries of modern science, which would render all these forces highly serviceable in respect of coast communication, our position is not so good as that of many foreign countries. It is the old story of the bundle of sticks, which, separate, were weak and useless, but, bound together, were strong and unbreakable. It may be urged that our lighthouses and coastguard stations are already connected by a system of signalling. That is true. They have semaphores, rockets, guns and flags. But this system of signalling is often ineffective even under favourable circumstances, and when there are

  1409
  storms or fogs it breaks down entirely. It is, in my opinion, a disgrace to this country that it should still rely on a system of signalling that was no doubt known to Hengist and Horsa when they landed on these shores. I have heard it said that, owing to the strength of currents and other causes, it would be very difficult to connect rock lighthouses with the shore by means of cables, but competent engineers are willing to undertake to surmount the difficulty, and to establish an effectual connection. Another objection which has been raised is that the expense would be very great, but the expenditure of £100,000 per annum for a few years would be sufficient for the complete achievement of the work, and the money would be well spent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that there is still remaining a surplus of 3d. in the £1 in connection with the telegraph service of the country. The money required might well be supplied from that source, and no opposition would probably be raised to it. It seems to me that the proposals in this Resolution are the very minimum of what is necessary. I hope that the Government, if they do assent to the Resolution, will put no obstacle in the way of its being carried out, so that there may be complete telephonic communication between all the coastguard stations along our coast. I also hope that the matter of electrical connection between lightships and rock lighthouses and the shore will be referred to a Commission of good engineering experts; and I have little doubt the Report of such a Commission would be in terms consonant with our wishes.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, with a view to the better prevention of loss of life and property in cases of vessels in distress or shipwrecked on the Coast of the United Kingdom, and to give the earliest possible information to lifeboat authorities and rocket apparatus stations, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that all coastguard stations on the sea coast and signal stations should be telephonically and telegraphically connected by Government, and that on those parts of the coast where such stations do not exist the post offices nearest to the lifeboat stations be telephonically or telegraphically connected; and that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the desirability of connecting certain light vessels
  1410
  and rock lighthouses by cable with the mainland in order to give information of vessels in distress."—(Sir E. Birkbeck.)
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: My hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk has in his speech once more stated the case, which he has several times before in various ways put before the public, for greater and more speedy means of giving notice to life-saving stations of vessels which may be in dangerous positions on our coasts. No doubt there has been, in some cases, a lamentable want of communication, and disasters have occurred which might otherwise have been prevented or lessened. Although much may be done by the connection of the coastguard stations, it is evident that accidents may occur out of sight of any possible telegraphic station, and that it will be impossible by any legislative or administrative action to do away with the dangers of the sea. But, nevertheless, a desire must be felt by all to give what assistance is possible in order to render more rare the occurrence of accidents which have filled the country with feelings of horror. It is scarcely necessary on this occasion to enter into the ancient history of this question, for the First Lord of the Treasury stated on 29th March, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk, that the Government sympathised with I him in his desire, and hoped that some thing material would be done towards carrying out the object which he had at heart. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire has stigmatised in somewhat strong language what he considers the backward position of this country in the matter, but if that be so the blame must be shared by all previous Administrations. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had any desire to reflect on the present Government; but, at the same time, I must tell the House that more has perhaps been done during the last five years to remedy the want than during any previous Administration. A great number of coastguard stations have been connected with the telegraph; and as regards the national defences, from which point of view this question has been noticed, I may say the Admiralty

  1411
  are now satisfied with the amount of communication they possess through these coastguard stations. I take up this question where the First Lord of the Treasury left it, and I think it is desirable that I should inform the House what steps have been taken since the 29th March to give effect to the Resolution of the Government which my right hon. Friend then described. Recognising the necessity of communication on the exposed part of the coast, we have, with some considerable labour, framed an estimate of the cost in respect of connecting telephonically the coastguard stations on the exposed part of the coast from the Isle of Wight to Lynmouth in North Devon. That covers a considerable part of the coast to which attention has been called in late years, and where lamentable wrecks have occurred, and includes the connection of the five outlying islands, the Scilly Islands. Approximate calculations have been made as to the expense of carrying out the work, and the amount is something over £16,000. That estimate of work will be continued all round the coast, and I do not think that the House will be surprised that the engineers of the Post Office have not been able to accomplish more during the present month. But the fact of my addressing the House on the part of the Government will show the House that the matter has got beyond the stage of contemplation, and that we are taking actual steps to carry it into execution. Of course there are coastguard stations that are less important than others. Some occupy very exposed positions where ships are liable to be stranded, and from these it is extremely necessary that speedy communication should be made to the lifesaving stations. Hence Her Majesty's Government propose to proceed at once with the erection of wires in such cases. We have already put in hand the surveys of several of these works of the more pressing kind, and some of them will be immediately commenced. I may say that one point—Morthoe—which has been referred to just now on account of a lamentable wreck which occurred there not very long ago, will receive early attention; and that an extension of the telegraph to the
  1412
  neighbouring post office is already being carried out. As I have said, surveys of these works are in progress, and our officers have been in personal communication with the Lifeboat Institution, with a view to select cases, which are of pressing importance. Amongst those which it has already been decided to carry out may be mentioned the following:—From Morthoe to Ilfracombe on one side, and Croyde on the other; from Hartland Quay to Clovelly on the one side, and Bude on the other; from the Lizard to Cadgwick on the one side, and to Mullion and Porthleven on the other; from Swanage to Studland Bay on the one side, and to St. Alban's Head, Bottom and Kimmeridge on the other, combined with an extension of the existing wire between St. Alban's Head and Corfe Castle to Poole, in order that the lifeboat there may be brought within call of the coastguard stations as well as the lifeboats at Swanage and Kimmeridge. The apparatus used in these four cases will be telephones. Then again, a point very much pressed is that of Beachy Head to Eastbourne and Seaford. Extension of an existing A B C circuit between Kingsbridge and Prawle, to Salcombe on the one side and to Rickham and Hall Sands on the other, is also to be mentioned. In harmony with the plan which has been discussed with the National Lifeboat Association, but independently of their views on the subject, it has also been decided to give telegraphic communication to Pennan, a village on an exposed part of the Scotch coast, midway between the lifeboat stations at Fraserburgh and Banff. A number of extensions to outlying parts of the coast are also now being carried out by the Post Office for the Admiralty, and they will doubtless prove useful for the purpose of saving life. These are only the beginnings. Of course we cannot take everything in hand. We have not only to meet the wants much felt, but I hope shortly to extend the system to other points in England and Wales. In addition, arrangements have been made with the London and North-Western Railway Company and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company in order that expeditious communication

  1413
  may be made to stations on those lines of ships in distress. A rough estimate has also been made of the cost of establishing telegraphic communication with all lighthouses and lightships, which will be a proper subject for inquiry. The cost of this part of the scheme will approach the sum of £300,000. My hon. Friend speaks of our being far behind other nations as regards electric communication with lighthouses and life-saving stations, but I do not believe that we are so far behind as is sometimes supposed. In the first place, a great many of our coastguard stations are in telegraphic communication already, and many more are situated so near the telegraph that they may be considered in connection. Of 290 lifeboat stations, 170 are now within one mile of the telegraph, and of 273 coastguard stations, 207 are similarly situated, so that it is very evident a person can in a very short time reach the telegraph station. My hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk is, I think, in error in stating that the terrible results at a recent wreck might have been modified by coast communication, because the evidence showed that the result was not due to want of telegraphic communication. It is certainly not more than three miles from the bay in which the ship was stranded to Ilfracombe, and in fact the officer of the coastguard ran the distance between the two places in 25 minutes. While I am anxious to say nothing in depreciation of that admirable class of men who man the lifeboats, I think it is only right to say that blame was attached to the men in charge of the lifeboat on that occasion for not launching it in time to rescue the crew, instead of waiting until the tide had got into such a condition that it was impossible to do so. It is true that in the United States there are twelve places, outlying lights, in direct or indirect communication by telegraph, and 27 shore lights, but neither America nor any other nation has connected its lightships with the shore. Denmark has 14 outlying lights in connection with the shore and all its shore lights, but France has none at all—neither outlying lights nor shore lights, nor life-saving stations, though
  1414
  it has signal stations, which are probably for naval or commercial purposes. I think my hon. Friend was in error, for I do not understand him, in saying that the outlying lights of Holland were connected with the telegraph, because my information is to the contrary.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I said they had absolute coast communication throughout the whole coast.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: My information is that neither lightships nor outlying lights are in telegraphic communication. We should not think what other nations have done. We are the greatest maritime nation, and, therefore, there is every intention on the part of the Government to meet this claim that has been made. I say that we do see the necessity of connecting all the important points which may be useful in connection with our life-saving apparatus; and I need not add anything further beyond saying that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the means and feasibility of connecting outlying lights with the shore, but it is not so easy as the right hon. Gentleman supposes. Her Majesty's Government are happy to assent to the Motion, and I earnestly hope we shall be able to accomplish the object in view—namely, to prevent, as far as our power extends, the recurrence of lamentable cases in which life might have been saved had timely relief been procured.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Telephonic communication following the line of coast round the United Kingdom is, in the first place, what the Society of which the hon. Member for East Norfolk is the head—the National Lifeboat Society—thinks to be of most gigantic importance. But it is an entirely different subject from the question of connecting lighthouses on rocks or lightships; and as far as I read the proposal of the hon. Member, he desires to leave the second part entirely to the Commission which I understand Her Majesty's Government are about to grant. He does not tell us whether he intends to allow the first part of his Resolution to pass or not. If he does, it will not be necessary for me to say much about it.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I do.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: It is not alone the question of lifeboats—which, of course, the hon. Member for East Norfolk is most interested in—but it is also a question of which of the two means of saving life shall be used. That is a matter of great importance. From time to time the lifeboat goes afloat, when had there been telephonic communication between the nearest lighthouse or coastguard station it would have been unnecessary for the lifeboat to be launched, because it was known that the wreck, or probable wreck, was one which could only be approached by the rocket apparatus. Another reason is that in having a line of telegraphic or telephonic communication you will be able from your signal station to communicate with your rocket apparatus, which, as the House knows, is on wheels, and worked, not by the lifeboat authorities, but by the coastguard authorities. Owing to the absence of coast road it is often extremely difficult to get the apparatus to the required place, and unless the exact position of the wreck is known it is frequently necessary to make a considerable detour before the scene of the wreck is reached. The Postmaster General has alluded to the commencement which is being made by the Government to temporarily connect some of these stations; but, as a matter of fact, neither the mouth of the Thames nor that of the Mersey are included. Now, I think these are two particular places of which we should like to have information.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It was only possible in the present month to accomplish the survey and estimate for the part of the coast I have mentioned; but we have resolved also to connect Beachy Head with other places immediately, and also certain places on the coast of Aberdeen.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: The establishment of this communication in such places as the mouths of the Thames and Mersey would be of enormous importance, because there you have already got one class of experiment going on—the whistling buoy and the gas buoy. If the master of a vessel calculates on making one of those buoys and misses it on a foggy day the chances are the vessel goes ashore. At
  1416
  the Nore and other places where there are light vessels they are in sight of many of the standing beacons and buoys of the kind mentioned, and were one of these beacons or buoys out of order the master could telegraph or telephone to the immediate port whence warning could be issued. I am extremely glad that the Government have consented to give us what we have asked for.
  COLONEL HILL: I am sure it is with great satisfaction that the House learns the Government accedes to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for East Norfolk. We know that from time to time accidents to vessels do happen, and we have the further distressing knowledge that had communication existed valuable lives would have been saved. It is, therefore, gratifying to find that the Government are endeavouring to end loss of life in that particular. I am not myself careful to discuss the question of cost. I believe that the necessity be proved the House of Commons, and the country generally, will be ready to meet that cost. Resolutions have been passed by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, and the Association of Chambers of Commerce representing 76 centres of commerce have strenuously affirmed this want, and asked the Government to provide for it. I am pleased with the figures the Postmaster General has given, because it is evident that this most important work will not cost any enormous sum of money. As regards the question of connecting the lighthouses, I am perfectly at one with the Postmaster General that it is not necessary to connect them all, nor the whole of the lightships, but there are certain of them which should be so treated. While bowing to his superior knowledge, I am under the impression that the French lighthouse at Ushant is already in telegraphic connection with the shore. In reference to the question of connecting with the outlying lighthouses, I think it is raising a bogey to say that if we connect them with the shore the enemy in time of war will knock them down. I want to know where our Fleet is to be at that time? Even supposing the enemy could do such a thing, I think the

  1417
  chief injury would be to themselves, and I venture to say that we ought not to sacrifice an actual advantage in time of peace for a problematic disadvantage in time of war. I believe the difficulties will all vanish, and rejoice to think that before long there will be perfect communication. This maritime nation has a right to demand, not only for the sailors who navigate our vessels but also for the passengers who travel by them, such conditions of safety as would be afforded by the carrying out of the proposed Resolution.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like also to add my satisfaction at the announcement which has been made by the Government. I conclude that the inquiry to which the Government has assented will embrace the entire subject. The Motion appears to propose different treatment of the two branches of the subject. In the first part it is proposed to request the immediate carrying out of certain work, and that the subsequently appointed Royal Commission shall go further into the matter. I believe the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Loder)—who unfortunately, through circumstances he cannot control, is not able to be present—had an Amendment on the Paper which is to a considerable extent embodied in the amended Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol has referred to what he calls the bogey of a possible danger to this country in time of war if we connect our lightstations and lightships with the shore, and I must own that I was surprised to notice some remarks recently made by the President of the Board of Trade which gave encouragement to a theory which his colleague in the representation of Bristol very aptly describes as a bogey; for it is obvious that if an enemy arrived at the conclusion that it was to its interest and was within its power to injure this country by destroying lighthouses or lightships, it would carry out that policy without regard to the incident of telegraphic or telephonic communication being in existence or otherwise. In a matter of this sort we are bound to have some regard for the public purse, but the figures mentioned
  1418
  show that the amount required even at an extravagant estimate is relatively of so paltry a character that I do not think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, I hope, will shortly be back amongst us in restored health—would give even a passing thought to such a trumpery item in the preparation of his Budget next year. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General stated that the entire cost at the highest estimate would be £300,000, and that the annual sum required to keep the system in working order would be extremely small.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think that was stated from this Bench. I believe it came from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Well, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say £300,000, and in fact he first said £300,000 per annum, but corrected himself to stating that it would be a capital sum of that amount, and I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will next year make his Budget in accordance with the suggestion. As to the practical effect of an arrangement of this kind, it must be well known to the House that while in certain instances loss of life would occur under any conditions, still there are cases in which life and property would in all human probability be saved if a better system of communication were established. I feel sure there will be a feeling of great satisfaction at the Government having willingly consented to take so strong a step in this direction, not only by, as I understand, proceeding with the inquiry with all possible dispatch, but also by taking the important step referred to by the right hon. Gentleman without waiting for the inquiry.
  LORD H. BRUCE: Although I have never minimised the value of our lighthouses, I think there are other provisions that should be made for the safety of sailors of perhaps equal importance. For want of harbours of refuge, for instance, many poor fellows have been drowned. More than 700 men and boys die yearly within sight of our shores, and yet the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge of 1858 and 1859 has been ignored. As to the

  1419
  lighthouses on our coast, I would point out to the House that there is no lighthouse from Beachey Head to the Isle of Wight, a distance of 57 miles. There is a lightship, but that light is only visible ten miles, and, therefore, if you pass the Isle of Wight ten miles off you do not see it. On the French coast there is a lighthouse nearly every 20 miles, and I want to know if they can do that why we can not do the same in England? Now, Sir, I will just refer to the harbour of refuge called Dover Harbour, and which, I maintain, is no good to our sailors in a gale of wind. The entrance will be only 300 feet wide, although 600 odd acres are to be enclosed. How on earth can a sailing ship get in there during a gale of wind, with a tremendous current running at the rate of three miles an hour? If the harbour had been constructed at Dungeness some good might have been done, and at less cost. But, Sir, with regard to these harbours of refuge generally, there was a Royal Commission appointed——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but harbours of refuge are outside the scope of the present Motion.
  LORD H. BRUCE: Well, Sir, all I can say is this, that although we have some powerful lighthouses, our coast is very deficient in that respect, and I hope the Resolution before the House will be passed, and that everything possible will be done to save life at sea. So far that has not been done, inasmuch as the proposals of the Royal Commission of 1858 and 1859 have not been carried out.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 135.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Bill of which I now beg to move the Second Reading was originally brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Notting-
    1420
    ham (Mr. Broadhurst) in the years 1884 and 1885. When he became a Member of Her Majesty's Government in 1886, he asked me to take charge of it, and I did so. During that year it was read a second time without a division, and in the year 1887 a division took place upon it, when it was lost by a comparatively small majority. The Bill consists of eleven clauses and one schedule, but as will be seen by any one who looks at it, the gist of its provisions lies in some five or six clauses—from the fourth down to the eighth or ninth. The Bill contains a clause for the acquisition of sites for places of religious worship otherwise than by consent. That is compulsory acquisition of land for this purpose. By Clause 5 a requisition in writing must be served containing certain particulars, and on the receipt of that requisition, after a certain time has elapsed, a memorial is to be presented to the Council which is the authority in the place—either the County Council or the Town Council, as the case may be. And by Clause 7 the Council to which the memorial is presented shall appoint a time for the hearing of it, and certain consequences ensue. If the order be made, within six months of that time the site is to be conveyed. Provision is made for the payment of a sum to show the bona fides of the applicants, and that has to be placed in the hands of the Council. The last two or three clauses are more or less formal, and deal with matters of title. The Schedule contains the form of requisition, which must be signed by a number of persons of whose status and bona fides there can be no question. The Bill is comparatively brief, and as it has been more than once a matter of discussion here before, it is not necessary for me to dwell long upon it. I venture to think it contains all the provisions and safeguards which are necessary to provide against any wrong being done to a single individual. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it will be perfectly possible when the Bill gets into Committee to amend any particular provisions. But the principle now before the House is a very simple one, and the

    1421
    question I ask the House to determine on this Motion for the Second Reading is whether members of a religious denomination other than the Church of England, as by law established, shall have the same power of compulsorily obtaining land for places of worship as that particular Body has. I hope I may appeal to every hon. Member in this House, whichever side he sits on, in a matter of this kind. As I view it, it is a matter of simple justice that every religious denomination should have the same power in this matter as the one particular denomination to which I have alluded. I notice that the hon. Member for Wigan has, since the introduction of this Bill, introduced a Bill taking away from the Church of England the power they now have of compulsorily acquiring land. When that was introduced in another place three or four years ago it did not meet with much respect. And I think it is much better to impartially extend this power to all other denominations than to take it away from the particular Church which now enjoys it. The principle underlying this Bill is contained in the word of which we have heard so much at various times during the discussion of another Bill—namely, compulsion. I believe the mere fact that there is compulsion in an Act of Parliament will be its own remedy. I remember very well, many years ago, going to the then agent of a great nobleman in the Midland Counties, who was almost the sole owner of all the eligible plots of land in a country village, for the purpose of acquiring a site for the School Board of which I was then chairman. He listened to my request, and after I had pointed out the particular site I wanted, he intimated that the nobleman in question would not be able to consent to any such use of the land. His view of the School Board was that it was not needed, and therefore he opposed it. Well, I listened to all he had to say, and then I pointed out to him the powers of compulsion in the Act of 1870. This settled the matter, and we got the piece of land, and that is what I think would happen if we had such an Act of Parliament as this. I hope I do not take too sanguine a view when I express the hope
    1422
    that Her Majesty's Government will see their way not to oppose this Bill. I believe that during my absence on a particular Wednesday the First Lord of the Treasury alluded to this Bill, and said that it might well go to a Committee. If he said so I gather that he really does not oppose the principle of the Bill, and that he would be prepared to send it to a Committee, with the view to its details being discussed and possibly amended. The object of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to afford persons, otherwise unable, the opportunity of securing for themselves an eligible place in which to worship in the way their conscience approves. I am not going into particular incidents that I could give of people being unable to obtain suitable sites for places of worship up and down the country. I do not wish to do anything on the present occasion to arouse any feelings or create any hostility against this person or the other. I rest my case on the broad ground of justice, that what is right for the Church of England to possess—in this case the power of compulsorily acquiring land—is right for every other religious denomination in the country to have. I do not think I need add any more to the brief explanation of the Bill I have given, and I will therefore move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
    MR. KELLY: I have read this Bill through, and I must say that it seems to me of great importance to know what the Body is which is to carry out its provisions. The Bill is supposed to be founded upon two Acts, one passed in 1873 and the other in 1882. Now, if any hon. Member refers to the Act of 1873 he will find that there is nothing at all compulsory in its character. Its object was simply to empower landlords having limited interests to convey land as sites for places of worship. As to the amending Act of 1882, that was passed simply for the purpose of removing doubt as to whether conveyances could be made by Corporations and other Public Bodies. What I desire

    1423
    is that the body which is to have the compulsory power should be defined. But I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill on this account. I have always, I trust, dealt with questions of this kind in anything but a narrow spirit, and if I were convinced that any real difficulty was now experienced in obtaining proper sites for places of worship, I certainly should not oppose this Bill in any way. We have had charges made over and over again—we see them in the papers sometimes—against illiberal landlords, and we hear of the impossibility of acquiring sites for Nonconformist places of worship, but I have always found these charges are vague, and that when they come to be examined they fall to the ground. The hon. Member instead of saying he would not give the cases of difficulty in obtaining sites should have taken care to have done so. If it be necessary to force people to part with their land, well and good, but it must be under some rational and defined system. I do not know what the Council referred to in the Bill for carrying out its purposes is to be. It may be of a character that would not recommend itself to many Members of this House.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: It says either the County Council or the Town Council.
    MR. KELLY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have looked through the Bill and I am afraid I missed the clause altogether. However, I do not know why this power should be given to such a body. If, as the hon. Member supposes, the County Councils in the different counties would be inclined to give any site which Nonconformists may claim, then I venture to ask the House to consider whether a measure of this character should be agreed to unless some very good reason is shown for it. The hon. Member did not show any reason, but, on the other hand, he carefully avoided doing so. I believe myself that this Bill is out of date altogether. There may have been, and possibly was, a time when certain landlords did place unfair difficulties in the
    1424
    way of Nonconformists when they wished to obtain sites for their places of worship. I question very much, however, whether such people exist now. As far as my knowledge goes, I can safely say I have never heard of any well-found complaints on the part of Nonconformists that they were unable to acquire sites with the same ease as members of the Church of England. I ask the House to reject the Bill because it is utterly unnecessary, and also because it casts an unfair slur upon the landowners of England. I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I wish to second the Motion of the hon. Member who has just sat down. So far as I am aware this Bill is entirely without precedent. There have been enactments passed from time to time enabling a Local Authority, or a public company, to acquire land or property belonging to others when the object has been to benefit the entire community or a whole neighbourhood. The Bill now before the House, however, is to give power to acquire the property of another person for the benefit of, not the entire community, but a certain sect of individuals. I hope the House will pause before granting anything of the kind. As regards the necessity of the Bill, I am not aware that members of the various religious bodies have any difficulty in acquiring sites for places of worship. The number of such buildings proves that there can have been no difficulty in acquiring sites. I assert that there is no necessity for this Bill; but even if there were, you are going beyond the principles already established. I think there is no more melancholy sight in the country districts than the places of worship which have fallen into disrepair, when the necessity or demand for them has ceased. I see no provision for such a misfortune in this Bill, and I consider it is a misfortune that any landowner, large or small, should have his property disfigured by dilapidated buildings of this kind. The Act of

    1425
    1873 provides for such cases; and I think, when an entirely novel proposal of this kind is made, there should be at least the same facilities to meet this contingency as have been given in former measures. Some Members of the House are disposed to make sport of the fact that there are a very large number of different denominations; but I am not one of those. I regret that religion should cause men to separate into so many bodies, and believe it would be highly advantageous to the cause of religion if the number of denominations were smaller. But I think it will be admitted that all denominations are not entitled to the same consideration. I presume the Mormons would claim to be considered a religious body; but it would be a strong measure for any hon. Member to bring in a Bill to enable members of the Mormon denomination to acquire sites compulsorily, and to establish themselves on a firm footing to disseminate their most pernicious doctrines. The County Council is to determine whether there is any just demand, and to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Surely that is a large and comprehensive demand. They have to settle whether or not a site is required by a denomination, and I believe no County Council can fairly judge a question of that kind. The promoters themselves may know whether it is required or not, or they may be ambitious beyond the requirements of the neighbourhood; but it is impossible that a County Council can act with any certainty in a matter of this kind. Nothing is more uncertain than the success of a new place of worship. Sometimes a place which is started under the most favourable auspices goes to decay, and in another case you find that out of a small beginning a magnificent structure will spring up. A further question is whether any undue injury will be caused to the property which is to be acquired, and this is a problem which is most difficult of solution. What injury is due and what is undue is a question which is not easily decided; and I think, in asking a County Council to decide questions of this kind, you would be putting upon that body a power with
    1426
    which it was never contemplated that they should be entrusted. They have not the judicial power of summoning witnesses and putting them on oath. These are some of the difficulties which have occurred to me in considering this measure; but I regret that I have laid them before the House in a somewhat imperfect manner, as I was taken by surprise that this Bill should have been reached so soon. My great objection to this Bill is the introduction of the principle of compulsory purchase, not for the benefit of the entire community, but for one section of the community only. This is, I believe, an entirely new principle. I regard it as a mischievous principle, and I hope the House will not sanction it by agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have listened to the observations with which the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Bill introduced it to the notice of the House. I admit that he gave a very clear though very brief explanation of the measure; but what he failed to do was to lay any facts before the House indicating the necessity for passing such a Bill at all.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: That has already been done in this Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware whether that is so or not; but the fact that a Bill has been debated on a previous occasion does not absolve us, when a measure is brought forward, from explaining and justifying the proposals that we make to the House. So far as I am concerned, if a necessity were shown for compulsory powers under proper safeguards for the purpose of acquiring sites for religious denominations who are otherwise unable to obtain them, I should not offer any

    1427
    opposition to a proposal of that sort. The proposals really are two. One is that a large number of religious bodies desire to obtain land for the purpose of erecting buildings in which they can conduct services agreeable to their awn consciences, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Ellis) also proposes that where they are unable to obtain these sites they should have compulsory powers given to them. If it were shown that religious bodies desired to obtain such sites and could not obtain them, and that such a desire existed on a large scale, I should be glad to see any well-considered proposal for relieving them of that disability. But the hon. Member, I think, must be aware, and would agree with us, that compulsion ought not to be gratuitously introduced into any Bill unless the necessity for that compulsion existed; and if it were introduced it should be provided for in such a manner that the rights of any individual concerned, especially of those individuals from whom land is compulsorily obtained, shall be amply safeguarded. The hon. Gentleman appears to me to have satisfied neither of those two conditions. He has not given us any indication that any pressing necessity exists, and he certainly has not shown either that the rights of individuals are safeguarded, or that the machinery by which he proposes to carry out the objects of the Bill is really the kind of machinery to the institution of which the House of Commons ought to consent. For what is the machinery proposed? The machinery is not a judicial body which shall inquire the fair price of land and give a decision on the subject. It is not a jury or a properly constituted Court, before which evidence could be taken on oath, and bound to look at the matters which come before it from a judicial point of view. But, as far as I understand the machinery which the hon. Member proposes, it consists of the County Council of the county in which the site is desired; and, with all respect to the hon. Member, a body less fitted to carry out judicial functions it would be hard to conceive. By hypothesis, however, this Bill is only required where the landowner refuses to sell
    1428
    land for the site of a place of worship either from religious prejudice or other causes connected with unfortunate religious differences which prevail in parts of the country, and where the Nonconformist Body could not obtain the site they desired to obtain. If, therefore, the matter is one of acute controversy in the district, how can you go to the County Council elected by the ratepayers and expect a judicial decision? The County Council might have a strong religious bias adverse to the particular sect which desires and ought to have the site. That is possible; it is, perhaps, even in some cases probable, and in that case how can the County Council, elected on Party lines, animated possibly by Party feeling, possibly influenced by strong religious prejudice, calmly and impartially decide a question as to whether a site is required, and a question as to what are the rights of the parties in the matter? The County Council in some cases might defeat the object which the hon. Member has in view. We can suppose a County Council animated by the exactly opposite view, by strong antagonism to the landlord who has refused a site, who would use the enormous powers given by this Bill, not merely for the purpose of supplying the want which exists, but for the purpose of annoying some particular owner of property. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that a County Council, a body consisting of 70 or 100 members, shall sit and take evidence on oath, and look into all the details connected with the purchase of some site, and the religious necessities of some denomination. Is it possible that you can turn a body of 50 or 100 gentlemen into a tribunal for taking evidence on oath, and deciding matters of this kind? The hon. Member (Mr. John Ellis) will, therefore, I think, see that the machinery he has devised cannot possibly carry out his objects, or even be so altered in Committee as to be made to carry them out. The machinery he proposes is fundamentally bad, and for that reason I think he will feel that the Bill in its present shape cannot possibly receive the assent of the House. I will go a step

    1429
    further. As I said in my opening sentences, this House, before it gives compulsory powers for the acquisition of property, has always hitherto taken the most ample safeguards for protecting the rights of the individuals from whom property is thus compulsorily taken. What safeguard does the hon. Gentleman lay down? From such study, which I must admit has been rather hasty, as I have been able to give to this Bill, I can find not a single word about price or value, or ascertaining the price or ascertaining the value, or of compensation to the owner of the property from the first clause of the Bill to the last—from its first line to the end of the Schedule. I presume, though the hon. Gentleman has not touched upon that subject in his Bill, that the County Council of 50, 100, or 150 gentlemen who are to take evidence on oath and hear all the case for the applicants and the owner of property are to decide by a Party vote, or by a vote which may be a Party vote, as to how much money is to be given for the land thus compulsorily taken from the property owner. I think he will see that to charge a County Council with the determining of the amount of money or compensation to be given in such cases is to give them a power which they are totally unfit to exercise, and which may lead to the gravest abuses and the gravest unfairness.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him whether the County Councils have not quasi-judicial powers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member will be extremely puzzled to find any case in which a County Council, acting as a body, have judicial power at all, and certainly not judicial power of the kind that is given to them in this case. I will guarantee that the hon. Gentleman will not find a precedent for such an extraordinary and abnormal power given to any public body as that of settling whether land shall be bought compulsorily, and then deciding what price is to be given for that land. I do
    1430
    not believe that this Bill, as it stands, would work at all. I am sure it would work badly, but I think it would not work at all. Under the existing process County Councils cannot administer an oath; and I apprehend that the words in the 7th section of this Bill which says that they may take such evidence in such manner as they think fit, upon oath or otherwise—I apprehend that those words casually introduced would not place County Councils in the entirely novel position of being able in their corporate capacity to administer an oath to a witness. Therefore it appears to me that this Bill errs in almost every respect in which a Bill of this kind can err. The necessity for it has not been proved. The particular machinery by which it is proposed to carry it out is unworkable machinery; and even if it were a machinery that could be worked, there is no protection that it would be worked with justice or equity to the owners of the land taken. There is every reason for believing that it would be used either against the Nonconformists or against the owners of property according to the prejudices, passions, or political or religious views of the County Council, or according to the views which might sway or incline the majority of the members of that body. If, however, the hon. Gentleman thinks that a case can be made out for a compulsory Bill, I hardly think he will endeavour to carry this compulsory Bill, and I shall be prepared to have the matter investigated by a Committee of this House, and to put before that Committee both the proposal of the hon. Gentleman and a Bill introduced, I think, by some Gentleman on this side of the House, for depriving the Church of England of the power in this respect which it at present possesses, but which it has not so far found necessary to exercise. The question is one which deserves consideration, but it cannot possibly be settled by the Bill which is now before the House. I am quite prepared to admit that if a case can be made out, if it can be shown that the Nonconformist Body as a whole desire sites and cannot obtain them; that they are deprived of the power of

    1431
    carrying out their own religious worship in their own way by the difficulty of obtaining land on which to erect places of worship—if that can be shown, and if some method can be contrived of carrying out that object with equity both to the Nonconformists and to the owners of property, I should be very glad to accept it. But I think that this Bill in its present shape cannot be passed, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should give his adhesion to the proposal I have made.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: The hon. Member for Wigan has described this as a novel proposal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that 22 years ago, before he came into the House, I brought forward a Bill on all-fours, as far as principle is concerned, with this Bill, and that was read a second time without opposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), in all fairness, I admit, objected to this Bill on two grounds—first, that no case had been made out for compulsion, by which I suppose he meant that no case was quoted in which landlords had been asked to sell land for the purpose of erecting places of worship, but had refused.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No actual case has been quoted.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: That may be so. The second objection was to the machinery. I will try to deal with these objections. I confess this Bill has come upon me by surprise. I had not the least idea that it would be reached so early, and I am sorry that there is not a single Member from Wales present beside myself, or they could have given the right hon. Gentleman cases, especially from Wales, where the land belongs in the main to two or three great landowners, in which land had been required for sites for chapels, and had been refused by the landlords. I am not prepared now to quote cases, but they have been mentioned to this House, and cases could be quoted to this House which would abundantly prove the necessity for some Bill of this kind. The second objection was to the machinery. The only other machinery
    1432
    which could possibly be provided for carrying out such a measure as this is the Lands Clauses Act; but that is a matter of the greatest possible expense, and thoroughly unfitted for a purpose of this kind. In the Bill I brought forward 22 years ago I did avail myself of the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act; but it was pointed out in the debate that that machinery was wholly unsuitable in small cases where economy was desirable. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has formed such a low opinion of the County Councils, which, after all, are the creation of his own Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As judicial authorities.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: He seems to doubt whether it would be possible for a County Council elected by popular representation to deal fairly between the landowners and the ratepayers. I entertain a better opinion of the County Councils than the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of his objections were really purely matters of detail. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have carefully read Clause 7, which distinctly gives the power, by implication at all events, to take evidence upon oath or otherwise. But if there is any doubt as to those words being sufficient, I am certain that my hon. Friend who has charge of this Bill would not for a moment hesitate to introduce words which would make the clause properly effective. Then, with respect to a further objection, it seems to me to be quite impossible that you can have words more carefully guarding the rights and interests of landowners; but if you want more words by all means let them be inserted. But these questions are, after all, purely questions of detail, and therefore questions which ought not to be raised on the Second Reading of a Bill, but should be raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Wigan talked about the danger of the Mormons coming to England and the scandal which would be caused if a section of the Mormons were to insist on a compulsory site. That is an argument which has done duty over and over again, and I think was last heard from the lips of the hon. Member himself

    1433
    in the Debate on the Burials Bill. Surely it is merely trifling with a subject like this. I know that the matter is one about which there is a deep feeling in my own constituency and in my own Principality, and, after all, you must bear in mind that the Bill is founded upon a demand for equality. We are merely asking for the Nonconformist denominations the right which the Church of England, whether it chose to exercise it or not, has under an Act more than 60 years old. It seems to me that to grant a thing to the Church of England and to withhold it from the Nonconformists is, to say the least, invidious. If the whole matter is to be inquired into, I trust my hon. Friend will agree to the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury; but I would suggest that the Second Reading be pushed to a Division, if only for the purpose of showing that the House of Commons of 1892 is not less liberal than the House of Commons of 1870.
    MR. LAWSON: I cannot allow the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury with respect to the machinery of the Bill to pass unchallenged. His objections do not go to the root of the Bill, but apply solely to the machinery by which my hon. Friend proposes to carry out the principle. As to the judicial functions of the County Council, the right hon. Gentleman was himself a Member of the Government which endowed all County Councils with judicial functions, and they are now called upon to decide judicially in cases of licensing, and, more than that, the London County Council has decided judicially between Local Bodies and individual citizens. I sat upon a committee of that Council to decide between the Vestry of Paddington and an individual ratepayer, who thought the Vestry was wrong in asking him to make some sanitary improvements in his property. The Committee decided against the ratepayer, who was consequently put to some expense. All these judicial or quasi-judicial powers are now in daily exercise by County Councils. The hon. Gentleman says no evidence has been brought forward to
    1434
    justify the demand. The case has not, perhaps, been prepared with very great care, but evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee and in the Debates on the Enfranchisement of Places of Worship Bill.
    MR. KELLY: The hon. Member for Denbighshire referred to some evidence in that Debate, and I challenged him to give a name, but he did not do so.
    MR. LAWSON: There was evidence by Welsh witnesses that they could not get sites, and some of the witnesses from rural districts and Wales went so far as to give reasons for a Bill of this character, although outside the scope of the Committee's inquiry. My hon. Friend asks for nothing more than to bring the whole case and law into a logical form. Under the Act of 1818 Commissioners acting for the Church of England can obtain land for a new site or for the enlargement of a church compulsorily; and my hon. Friend asks that the same power may be given to other religious bodies, and that they may be placed on a footing of equality. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) proposes to repeal the powers in the case of the Church of England, not because that Church is unworthy to possess them, but because other bodies think they should receive equality of treatment. I think the First Lord of the Treasury would be acting more fairly if he allowed the Second Reading to pass, and then referred the Bill to a Select Committee, and I do not see why the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigan should not go to the same Committee.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to read these two Bills a second time and send them both to a Select Committee, or whether he intends to oppose both Bills and refer the question to a Select Committee? If the former is the position he takes up, it would be satisfactory to many Members on this side; but I do not see that there would be much gain in adopting the other course.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has asked which of two possible courses I recommend the

    1435
    House to adopt. It is, perhaps, my fault that I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I do not believe this is a possible Bill, but I have no objection to the principle if the necessity for it can be shown before a Select Committee. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to object to the Second Reading, it being distinctly understood that we take that view, and that the whole question be threshed out before a Select Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I hope it is understood that the whole question is open; that the whole question is to go before the Select Committee. I do not think that hon. Members quite realise that the Act of 1818 has only been acted upon once, and one of the grounds urged for repealing it is that there is now no religious feeling in this country which will prevent the acquisition of sites without compulsory powers. The theory of hon. Members opposite is that the whole country is divided up amongst large landowners; but even if that be so, there may be small occupiers who may be affected by this Bill, and I do not see any provision for compensating them as distinct from the owner. The right hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) contended that the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act would not be applicable, as it was so expensive. I would ask him to consider the nature of the inquiry to be held by the County Council as proposed here, and he will find that that would not be inexpensive. I should like to know what the position of a small owner would be. It might be that the animosity of two local religious bodies might go so far that one might feel pleasure in bringing the property of a member of the other body before the County Council. There is also nothing in the Bill which requires those persons who acquire sites to use them for religious purposes; it might be used for the erection of houses or anything else. I think it would be a distinct advantage to get these matters investigated before a Select Committee.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: After what the First Lord of the Treasury has said, there seems to
    1436
    be little occasion for further discussion. But I confess it does seem to me an odd sort of arrangement to refer to the same Committee another Bill which proposes to take away from another denomination the power this Bill proposes to give to Nonconformists. It brings back to my recollection an incident of some years ago when a similar Bill was before the House, when I ventured to point out that the Church of England possessed this power. That was violently denied by the whole of the clergy of the Church of England. I was denounced with bell, book, and candle by a right rev. Prelate, who said I had invented a Statute for the purpose of attacking the Church of England. I ventured to refer him to the Statute Book, but I do not think he had the grace to apologise. The Church seems to have become aware of this power, and wants to get rid of it. But the Church of England is not in the same difficulty in getting sites from landowners as are the Nonconformist Bodies, and it is ridiculous to say that one rule should apply to both—in Wales, for instance. To say there is no grievance is contrary to my experience and the testimony I have heard. I have often heard the question discussed; and though the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the instances which have occurred, I have seen them over and over again. If the question goes before a Committee I hope it will end by giving all denominations power to acquire compulsorily sites for their places of religious worship, and that it will not be urged that the Church of England will give up its power if you will continue the disability of the Nonconformists. I hope the Bill will go to a Committee with the view not of narrowing its limits, but rather of enlarging them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I presume my Bill will be referred to the same Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: Not now.
    Bill committed to a Select Committee.

  DIVORCE BILL.—(No. 123.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HUNTER: I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Since 1858 there has been no legislation in this House on the subject of divorce in England and Scotland; and though I agree that frequent legislation on the subject would be highly objectionable, I think after so long a period it is not unreasonable that the opinion of the House should be taken upon this somewhat narrow but important point. The Bill provides for the assimilation of the English and Scotch law on two points. The law in Scotland has been unchanged since the Reformation. It may be said that the law of Scotland is not absolutely defensible on logical grounds, because it provides the relief of divorce in certain cases and not in others where equally strong reasons might be urged, but it is a settlement which has stood the test of 300 years. I think it is desirable on the question of divorce the law of two peoples, who frequently intermarry, should, if possible, be the same. By the law of Scotland, desertion, in the strict legal sense, for four years is a ground for divorce, whether the husband or wife be deserted. The other provision of the Bill deals with the question of immorality. The matter was argued at great length on the passing of the Divorce Act, and it was decided finally that the husband should get a divorce for adultery only on the part of the wife, but that the wife should only get a judicial separation for adultery only on the part of the husband. The Scotch law puts both sexes on an equality in this matter. In 1857 the hon. Member for Midlothian, who opposed the Divorce Bill, defended the principle of absolute equality for both sexes on this point. The Bill will no doubt be attacked by those who object to all divorce, but they are a small body; and as the principle has been adopted by the English law, it ought to be applied with fairness and equality
    1438
    between the two sexes, and that equality is desirable in the highest interests of morality. And it will be attacked with more force, perhaps, by those who say you cannot stop at those two points. No doubt, if we were discussing the question de novo, there are other grounds, such as habitual drunkenness, imprisonment for a long period for serious offence, and insanity, on which it might be urged divorce should be granted. The ground for my particular proposal is that it has stood the test of 300 years, and no expansion of the law has apparently been desired. The House is in possession of two interesting Returns, one obtained by the right hon. Member for Midlothian showing the precise number of divorces in England since the Act of 1857, and the other obtained by myself, giving the corresponding figures for Scotland. The Returns show that, although the Scotch law is so much wider than the English law, the percentage of divorces to population in both countries was almost absolutely identical. We may, therefore, draw the conclusion that the Scotch law is not only sound in principle and just as between the sexes, but that in practice it does not lead to a great multiplicity of divorces. In justice to those who suffer under the inequalities of the English law, it is only just that relief should be provided, at least, so far as the Scotch law goes. I will not occupy the time of the House in giving the numerous cases of hardship which have been brought to my notice, but will simply move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and I confess I am not surprised that he has not been able to suggest to the House any other reasons for a relaxation—if I may use the term—of the conditions under which divorce is to be

    1439
    obtained in this country. He has told us that the Scotch law differs from the English law in this respect. I cannot speak from experience of the Scotch law, but I am extremely doubtful whether or not there are any large number of divorces for the causes which come under this Bill. I have had some little experience in the Divorce Court in this country, and from that and from the information brought to my notice since I have been in office, whatever may be the opinion with regard to the work of the Divorce Court, I should hesitate, and I respectfully and strongly advise the House to be very slow, to render more easy the means of getting dissolution of marriage. My distinct belief is—and I say it with extreme regret—that the number of collusive divorces which come before the Court, and which do not reach the Queen's Proctor, is very large. The information on this point coming before me as Attorney General has surprised and shocked me. Now, there are three changes proposed in the Bill. The first is, that the wife should be able to obtain dissolution of marriage, as distinct from judicial separation, on the ground of the husband's adultery alone; the second, that she should be able to obtain a divorce for four years' desertion; and the third, that the husband should be able to obtain a divorce for a similar desertion by the wife. My hon. and learned Friend proposes that four years' desertion without reasonable excuse should entitle the wife to dissolution of marriage. Let us consider, from the point of view I have put to the House, what the objection to that would be. We know very well that under the circumstances of many cases desertion is a very great hardship, and is most cruel; and in cases where the husband has himself been guilty of adultery, it is a ground for divorce. But my hon. and learned Friend proposes that simple desertion for four years should be sufficient. I wish he could have given us a little more information on that point with regard to the Scotch law. Perhaps some other Scotch Member will be able to tell us how many cases of this kind
    1440
    there have been under the Scotch law during the last ten years. That is information that would have been valuable—mere general observations do not carry the case any further. But we must look at this matter from a practical point of view. Take the case, which I would remind the House in my opinion occurs very frequently, of persons being only too willing to separate from one another, and to break the marriage tie if they can do so without any unnecessary stain on their character; or the case of a husband whose business constantly takes him away; or cases might arise in which what after all is only separation by consent might be turned into desertion without reasonable excuse. I cannot imagine any test less likely to limit the operations of the Divorce Court than that such a short period of desertion, and that the circumstances of desertion only should be sufficient to obtain a dissolution of the marriage. In some cases it has been said that judicial separation is scarcely an advantage; but, on the other hand, a large number of persons agree to live separately by separation deed rather than go into the Divorce Court at all. What I have said with regard to a petition for dissolution of marriage against a husband on the ground of desertion obviously applies with very considerable force—I may almost say with increased force—in the case of so-called desertion by a wife. Incompatibility of temper and living away from one another would, in many cases, be turned into desertion by a wife; and I doubt whether desertion would apply in the case of a wife in the same way as it applies in the case of a husband. With regard to the other ground which is to be sufficient to justify the Court in decreeing a dissolution of marriage, I confess, apart from the proceedings in the Divorce Court, and apart from what may be called the legal proceedings of divorce, I sympathise, to a great extent, with the argument of my hon. and learned Friend. Everyone, I imagine, can conceive persons, whose opinions are entitled to great weight, who entertain the view that there should be an equal standard of morality for men and women. We

    1441
    can conceive persons holding the view that the punishment, if it is to be called punishment, in the case of the husband's adultery ought to be as great as in the case of the wife's adultery; but, unwilling as I am to use an argument in this House or outside this House to lower the standard of morality in one case or the other, I think it is not possible, as experience in the Divorce Court shows, to treat or argue the case on what may be called purely moral or philosophic grounds. We must look at the matter practically, and I have not the slightest doubt that immorality on the part of the husband is not regarded as so serious an offence as immorality on the part of the wife. There are reasons why, from a practical point of view, I think it is not an unfair thing to say, human nature being what it is, that the wife cannot ordinarily be subjected, and is not ordinarily subjected, to the same temptation as the husband is, if there is any liability to failure in the case of one or the other; and when dealing with this question, and considering the grounds upon which persons are justified in obtaining a dissolution of the marriage contract, we cannot shut our eyes to the views taken by high-minded people from a practical standpoint. But, as I have said, regarding the matter from an abstract point of view of right and wrong, or on moral or religious grounds, I admit there is a great deal to be said for the view that the punishment of the offence should be as great in the one case as in the other. I am not sure that it would be desirable in the interests of the wife that the Court should be bound to dissolve the marriage on the ground of the husband's adultery alone. Of course, my hon. and learned Friend may meet that by saying that there should be a discretion given to the Court; but I think there would be a great objection to give that discretion to the Court, having regard to the protection which is afforded to the wife by a judicial separation, by increase of alimony, and by the custody of the children. The opinion I have formed—and I have given some thought to the question and I give my opinion with great deference to the opinion of others—is,
    1442
    that it would be undesirable that there should be an alteration of the law in the manner indicated by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He will, of course, appreciate the distinction I make. I have already said that I have not any objection to it from what I may call the moral view of the case; but I consider that an alteration of the law, even in that respect, is undesirable, and that, being undesirable, we ought not to relax the conditions under which the dissolution of marriage can be granted, unless a very strong case can be made out. I trust that hon. Members who have experience of the working of the Divorce Court will follow me in this Debate, if it is thought necessary to continue it; but knowing, on previous occasions, that the question was going to be raised, I took steps to inquire from those whose opinion I value, and from those whose opinion I am sure the House would consider entitled to very great weight, as to what would be the practical working of a change in the law in this direction; and certainly the great majority of those who have experience of the working of the Divorce Court to whom I have spoken have concurred in my opinion that a relaxation of the law in this respect would be undesirable. I cannot part from this branch of the subject without again referring to the question of collusion. It has been impressed forcibly upon my mind repeatedly during the last five or six years. I want my hon. and learned Friend to consider how the question of collusion bears upon this question of the relaxation of the conditions under which dissolution of marriage can be granted on the ground of the husband's adultery alone. Parties very often have no objection to be charged with adultery when they want to be divorced. It is not an uncommon thing for a wife to allege cruelty in order to turn judicial separation into a decree for the dissolution of marriage. The husband not unnaturally is unwilling to admit that he is guilty of cruelty. Therefore we have one safeguard, though it is a slight one, against collusive divorce, because if the husband has been

    1443
    guilty of adultery, and not guilty of cruelty, only a judicial separation, and not divorce, can be obtained. If the alteration of the law proposed by my hon. Friend were carried into effect then a divorce could be obtained on proof of the husband's adultery alone; and I am satisfied that, in the case especially of both parties wishing to get rid of one another, the door to collusive divorce would be much more freely opened, and we should hear more of it. Speaking with some little experience of the Divorce Court—though I give my opinion with all deference—I think it is undesirable, speaking of the procedure of the Divorce Court, to relax the conditions on which dissolution of marriage can be obtained, and to make the facilities for obtaining the dissolution of the marriage contract more easy. From the point of view of morality, from the point of view of perjury, and from the objection I take from my experience of the working of the Divorce Court, I think this relaxation would not be a wise step. The only argument, if I may venture to call it an argument, that my hon. and learned Friend used is based, upon Scotland—a country for which I have the greatest respect; and for the laws of Scotland I have the greatest admiration. But I feel that it is not by calling attention to a law which has existed in Scotland for 300 years, and was, there fore, well known at the time that the English Divorce Act was passed, and was no doubt taken into consideration—it is not by calling attention to that, but by showing, if it can be shown, that within a reasonable period divorce or dissolution of marriage for lesser offences has prevailed largely in Scotland, that some ground would have been shown for the Second Reading of this Bill. But it appears to me that the House should not agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, and that at the present moment it is not desirable that the law should be altered in the manner proposed.
    SIR J. MCKENNA: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I venture to say that this is one of the most audacious Bills introduced to Parlia-
    1444
    ment since I have first had a seat in this House. What this Bill proposes to do is to make it easy to obtain a divorce by the simplest collusion, and without the slightest impairment of the character of either party. That is the premium that is held out. A duly married couple have only to separate for four years, and then they can obtain a divorce as a matter of course. One of the greatest obstacles that now lies in the way of availing of the Law of Divorce is this: that it cannot be done without a certain amount of punishment, social and otherwise, hanging to one party as a result of the decree of the Court; but what does this Bill say? If either the husband or wife deserts—that is to say, keeps out of the way for four years—that will amount to legal desertion of the party who complains, and who may be the great offender, and gets completely rid of all impeachment of character of either party, thus offering a temptation to the innocent one, and holding out a premium of immunity to the guilty one; for if there is guilt in any case under this Bill, however serious, there is no provision whatever for the Queen's Proctor intervening. In cases of this kind nothing could be easier than collusion. An infamous offender might, in fact, force his wife to take the only remedy open to her—namely, proceedings for divorce, which carried no punishment. Under the pretence that it is desirable to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland, the hon. and learned Member introduces this Bill, which purports to apply the same condition now applicable in Divorce under the law of Scotland to the Law of Divorce in England. The hon. and learned Member has not explained how the Marriage Laws of England and Scotland have been so different for centuries and are so still; but it came about in this way. The Christian Law of Marriage was early promulgated in England, but was never proclaimed in Scotland at all; not even the latest summary of the law, that of the Council of Trent; thus when the Reformation came upon these countries, whether for good or whether for ill, the Marriage Law of Scotland was radically different from the Marriage Law of

    1445
    England. I may say for the information of my hon. Friends that the Marriage Law in Scotland was, before the Reformation and in Catholic times, what it has been ever since, with the exception of a few modifications that have been introduced in the course of the last 20 years. The Law of Marriage stood before the Council of Trent in this way—it was left undetermined whether the Sacrament of Marriage was performed by the parties themselves or should be by the intervention of a priest in orders. The Council of Trent decreed that for the future in every country in Christendom in which the Council of Trent should be proclaimed—but not till then—the marriage between the subjects of the Church and of the State should be in faciemecclesiàe—in face of the Church; which, interpreted into ordinary language, meant that it should be in the presence of the priest of the parish, where the ceremony purported to be effected. The marriage law, as laid down by the Council of Trent, was proclaimed in England; it was proclaimed in France; and it was proclaimed over all the Continental countries of Christendom; but it never was proclaimed in Scotland, and, the Council of Trent not having been ever proclaimed in Scotland, they have nothing to modify, and they have had no occasion to do a number of things there which the ancient law of England since Saxon times made absolutely imperative in order to validate or which, being omitted, might afterwards invalidate a marriage. We are now asked to assimilate the law of England and Scotland with respect to marriage; but the hon. and learned Member cannot say that the law of Scotland is now exactly what he proposes that the law of England and Scotland should be when this Bill is passed. Well, I now understand the hon. and learned Member does say so, but even if this be the state of the law in Scotland, I would ask to be informed what advantage and how many times advantage has been taken of that law in Scotland for the purpose of carrying out divorce on principles that would be made easy for both England and Scotland? That would be more pertinent
    1446
    to the argument by which the hon. and learned Member attempts to support his Bill. That fact would be more pertinent than anything else—how many people in Scotland have felt so aggrieved for the last 300 years that they availed themselves of the facilities for divorcing themselves from one another on the ground of mere desertion? How many have availed of it? If very few have availed of it, then I say that there should be no temptation held out to the people here, who are of a different constitution from my Scotch friends. Then there is another ground on which I say this Bill ought to be rejected. There has been no warning of it, and there has been no inquiry on the subject. Even if there were a justification in the minds of the majority of this House for bringing in such a Bill and sending it to a Committee, it would be a most serious thing to stamp it with the seal of a Second Reading in this House without its having been submitted previously to any test except the test of the judgment of the five Gentlemen, which is not altogether infallible, whose names are found on the back of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    MR. KELLY: I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member. I am not at all in favour of dealing, and I trust the House will not deal, piecemeal with the Marriage Laws. I admit that there are cases in which divorce is most improperly denied, as for example in cases of insanity, of habitual intemperance, and of long terms of penal servitude. In the case of penal servitude for life I think that the relief should be given which is now denied; but I am not prepared—and I trust that the House will plainly say that it is not prepared—to enter upon this large question of reform for the mere purpose of making changes. I admit that on the face of it there appears to be some injustice in saying that while a husband shall be entitled to a divorce from his wife on the ground of her immorality, the wife shall not be similarly entitled. Theoretically the cases are the same, but

    1447
    practically they are not. It is manifestly of the greatest importance to the children that they should have their mother living with them and caring for them. The immorality of the husband, although it may be a bitter and cruel wrong to the wife, cannot, and does not, inflict the same wrong as the adultery of the wife does, not only upon the husband, but upon the children of the marriage. The circumstances are not the same. This Bill, therefore, can scarcely commend itself to one's mind, because it makes an alteration in the case of adultery in favour of the wife. As to the desertion of a wife by her husband, the House must be aware that if the husband has also been guilty either of adultery or desertion of his wife for only two years, the wife is now entitled to go to the Court and to obtain the relief she requires. The wife, if she cannot, as the Bill proposes, obtain a divorce on the ground of her husband's desertion for four years, has a remedy; for, after two years' desertion, she can have a decree of judicial separation from him. The question of desertion is one of such minor importance that the House will decline to alter the law in regard to it. I would remind the House, if necessary, that we have not far to go to see what the result of tampering with the law of divorce has been. Hon. Members should remember how the United States stand in regard to this matter. The law there practically varies in every State. Almost without any sound reason—in fact with none, except a mere unwillingness to live together—people are divorced by dozens and by hundreds every year in particular States of America. And, indeed, even in France there was a case the other day in which a wife of 80 sued for a divorce from a husband of 80 on the ground of incompatibility of temper. I once met with an American in a railway carriage who explained that he had been divorced five times, and who said he only regretted that he had not sooner known that a divorce could have been obtained for $45. Such a state of the law must be a scandal, not only in our eyes, but also in those of all thoughtful Americans. People from the States often congratulate us in
    1448
    England upon our having had the good sense not to tamper with the sanctity of the marriage rite. By refusing to enlarge the grounds upon which marriages may be dissolved in this country, we shall, I trust, do something towards preserving the sanctity of the marriage tie, for which England has been perhaps more honoured than any other country.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir J. McKenna.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. MCLAREN: I cannot allow the House to divide without saying how strongly I wish to see this Bill carried. I do not approve of the provision that divorce can be obtained for four years' desertion, but that is a detail for Committee. The essence of the Bill seems to me to be, that whatever the law as regards the cause of divorce against a wife may be it should be the same as against the husband. I regret that there should be a feeling in the House against the alteration of the law proposed by the Bill. The law in Scotland has always worked perfectly well; while in France an Act has been recently passed on the same lines as this Bill, which is also working well. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not have a similar law in this country, and I earnestly hope that the Bill will be read a second time.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I hope that the House will not assent to the Second Reading. It has been brought in by a Scotch Member, but English Members have a right to say that they are much better satisfied with the law as it stands in England than they would be with the introduction of the Scotch law on the subject. We have been told that the Scotch law works well in that country; but however that may be, it is no reason why Scotchmen should bring in a Bill seeking to alter the law in England. I am prepared to give my cordial assent to the Amendment, and I hope the House will agree to it.
    Question put.
    (7.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 85.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented,—of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1891 by the Hydrographer of the Admiralty [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ALLOTMENTS BILL.—(No. 94.)
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  MOTIONS.

    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Culling worth Gas, Kempston Gas, Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas, South Normanton and I Slack well Gas, and Sutton and Hooton District Gas, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 295]

    SUNDERLAND'S CHARITY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Barran, Bill to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity of Samuel Sunderland, in the parish of Bingley, in the West Riding of the county of York, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barran and Sir Stafford Northcote.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 296.]

    WITNESSES PROTECTION BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Charles Russell, Bill for the better protection of Witnesses giving evidence on Parliamentary and other public inquiries, ordered to be bronght in by Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Burt, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Morley, and Mr. Edmund Robertson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 297.]

  GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL. (No. 65.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. HUNTER: This is a measure of such great importance that I regret it comes on for Second Reading in a House containing such a small number of Members. I will shortly explain to the House what its provisions are, and what are the grounds upon which it is founded. In the first place, I would point out that this House has far too much work to do in regard to Imperial matters, English matters, and Irish matters, to be able, however willing it may be, to give proper attention to the business of Scotland. We could undoubtedly find the time and the opportunity to manage the business of Scotland for ourselves, without the assistance of English or of Irish Members, in a manner far superior to what can be done in this House. In the second place—and this is the more important point of view—Scotch Members are in a very small minority in this House, and Scotch opinion is habitually overturned and set aside by the English votes. There are 500 English Members in this House, whilst Scotland has only 70, or 72 including the Universities. The result is that almost everything that Scotland wants is refused, and what Scotland does not want is forced upon it by this House. During the last six years a widespread feeling has been produced in Scotland that something should be done to secure the better management of the affairs of that country. I will spare the House to-night a recital of Scotch grievances, and will at once explain that the main provision of this Bill is that the whole legislative work of Scotland should be done in Scotland by the Scotch Members of Parliament; that these Members should meet in the autumn to dispose of the business; and that the Bills that they pass should become law with the sanction of the Crown, and without the interference either of this House or of the House of Lords. The sphere assigned

    1451
    by the Bill to the Scotch Legislative Body is almost precisely identical with that which was provided for Ireland in the Bill of 1886.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
    DR. HUNTER: It is proposed that if there is any doubt as to whether the Scotch Legislative Body has transgressed the limits laid down for it the Bill shall be laid before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and hon. Members should take the advice of that Committee, and not give their consent to the Bill if the Committee decide that it is a violation of the limits laid down. This plan, I think, would be most advantageous, as it avoids the difficulties which exist under the United States Constitution. At the same time, it provides a most competent and able tribunal to determine whether Bills passed by the Scotch Legislative Body are within its powers. Then there is another provision with regard to the relation of Scotland to England in the matter of taxation. It is provided in the Bill that, after the Scotch Legislative Body has been appointed, Scotland should pay towards the maintenance of Imperial establishments in the same proportion as England and Wales, having regard to the relative wealth and number of the population. Now, from our point of view, this is a most important provision, because on an examination of the figures which have been supplied to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the taxation of Scotland, Ireland, and England, it appears, after a proper account is taken of the sum Scotland actually pays and the sum which she would pay, having regard to the number and wealth of her population, that Scotland would be at least a million and a half richer than she now is. A million and a half is no doubt a very small sum so far as England is concerned, because she is a large and wealthy country; but to a small country like Scotland,
    1452
    with only 4,000,000 of population, the sum is a large and serious amount. I hope the Government may appoint the Committee which they have promised to inquire into the subject during the present Session, and no doubt that subject can be better discussed by a Committee than by the House itself. There is one reason which to many of us is in itself sufficient for the passing of this Bill. Under the operation of this Bill, if it become law, the Scotch people, without the interference of the English people—and, above all things, without the interference of the other House—would be able to pass such measures for the good government of their country as they might feel just and necessary. And if there is one grievance felt in Scotland more than another it is the tyrannical majority of the English Members who, naturally, vote on Scotch questions according to English ideas. If, however, I take a lesson from them and endeavour to impart a little of the enlightenment and liberality which exists in Scotland, they turn round and denounce me for interfering with English questions. That is a question which I hope they will take to heart. What we complain of is that we are over-ruled and overridden by an English majority which is totally indifferent to either the feelings or interests of the people of Scotland. Then how do the Government propose to meet this universally acknowledged evil? Why, they introduce Private Bill Procedure for Scotland—a measure so ridiculously inadequate and so inconvenient and preposterous in its provisions as a first instalment of Home Rule that it is laughed at from one end of Scotland to the other. I shall not detain the House longer, but move the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Hunter.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—
    House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.