asked the honourable Member for Gravesend, Whether he has taken the usual steps to secure a day for bringing forward the Motion which stands in his name in the Order Book, reflecting on the professional character of the honourable Member for Pembroke; and, if not, why he has omitted to do so?

In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), I beg to disclaim any intention of reflecting upon the professional character of the hon. Member for Pembroke. I have selected the earliest day on which I could bring on my Motion—Tuesday, the 11th May. I am not acquainted with the hon. Member for Pembroke, and have never spoken to him in my life. If, however, he will put himself in communication with me, I shall be happy if I can meet his convenience in regard to the time of bringing the Motion before the House. I may add that I should have brought the matter before the House directly after Easter had not my time, as hon. Members are aware, been fully occupied.

Sir, perhaps the House will allow me, as one who is interested in this subject, to say a few words in regard to it. ["Hear, hear!" and "Order."] I will conclude with a Motion, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are disinclined to listen to a personal explanation.—["No, no!"] I would not presume to think that the Motion was an attack upon myself, but for the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, that it was to be so considered; and while thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he answered the Question put to him, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) for having, without any communication with me, put the present Question, I must say that I have not felt any serious desire to have this question brought forward, and that for two or three reasons. In the first place, it is much easier to put a Question reflecting by imputation and inuendo upon the character of a Member of this House than it is to substantiate an attack by a speech which will satisfy this House that the attack is justified; but I have been willing to make great allowances for the hon. Member who has found himself suddenly placed in the position of being called upon to justify the imputation which his Question conveyed. In the next place, many circumstances may arise, after a Notice of this kind is given, to divert the attention of the giver of the Notice from the attack which he contemplates upon another person to the defence of his own position, and I am willing to make great allowance for those circumstances. And thirdly, I wish to be allowed to say, that whatever this Motion may be in the nature of an attack upon myself, it is also a Motion in the nature of an attack upon Her Majesty's Navy; and if it has any force whatever, it is calculated to spread anxiety in reference to Her Majesty's ships. The national guardians of the character of the Royal Navy in this country sit opposite, and as they have not thought the Notice of Motion was worthy of their attention, and have not taken the trouble to remove the imputations which it made upon Her Majesty's Navy, I have felt that I might freely pass by the imputations it conveyed upon myself in a like spirit. I will add, however, that I doubt whether it is to the credit of this House, that it should give countenance to individual Members making attacks upon other Members by the Forms of the House, allowing those attacks to remain upon the Notice Paper day after day and week after week, merely for the purpose of imputing charges without, as far as I can understand, coming forward to substantiate them. I would, therefore, venture to suggest that it would be better if hon. Members would defer making attacks until they are ready to substantiate them. I now beg to move the adjournment of the House.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any rule or regulation which directs that in calculating pensions or retiring allowances a man who voluntarily resigns a situation under Government, not being sixty years old, nor in bad health, forfeits all title to pension, and that in respect of services previous to such resignation his title is not revived by any subsequent service; whether, if there be such a regulation, he will lay it upon the Table; and, whether since its enactment such regulation has been maintained without any instance of infringement, or, if it has been infringed, in how many eases and for what reason?

Sir, the 10th section of the Superannuation Act, 1859, 22 Vict., cap. 26, provides that—

"It shall not be lawful to grant any superannuation allowance under the provisions of this Act to any person who shall be under 60 years, unless upon medical certificate to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of the Treasury that he is incapable, from infirmity of mind or body, to discharge the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent."

The 11th section of 4 & 5 Will. IV, c. 24, contained similar provisions, the age being 65 instead of 60. When a person leaves the Service under circumstances which give him no claim to any superannuation allowance, compensation allowance, or gratuity, it has always been held by the Treasury that his connection with the public service is absolutely broken by that circumstance; and that if he ever after reenters the Service, such re-entry constitutes a fresh departure, from which date only his service can count for future pension or gratuity. The rule is a traditional one, and constantly acted upon, but no specific date can be assigned when it was formally "enacted." It has hardly ever been infringed, and in every case in which it has been infringed, there have been some very special circumstances which have been held to justify the break of service being overlooked.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, What amount the Surveyor to the Office of Works received last year for salary, and what amount for commission or purchases made for the Department of Works?

in reply, said, that the salary of the officer in question was £750 per annum, and his commission in purchases made for the Department amounted to £331.

I desire, Sir, to crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I call attention to a statement made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), on Friday night, reflecting on the judicial character of a most distinguished Judge—the Lord Chief Justice of England. I see the hon. Member for Peterborough in his place, and I have given him Notice of the Question I am about to put to him. The House will remember that on Friday there was a discussion of a Petition then before the House. In the course of that discussion the hon. Member said, that the Lord Chief Justice had, on several occasions during the trial of "The Queen v. Castro," in addressing the defendant's counsel, asked this question—

"Have you considered what a disastrous effect, socially and morally, would follow if, after all we have heard from these lords, ladies, and gentlemen to the effect that he is not Tichborne, the jury should find that he is?"

I heard these words imputed to the Lord Chief Justice with astonishment, but as I knew that all—every word indeed—from the beginning to the end of the trial, had been published, and was in print, I did not suppose that any hon. Member could have made that statement, unless he had been prepared with authority for it. I accordingly asked the hon. Member where that statement was to be found, whether it was in the Charge of the Lord Chief Justice; or in any other part of the proceedings. The hon. Member, thus challenged, replied that he had not spoken of the Charge; but that, more than once during the trial, the Lord Chief Justice had addressed the defendant's counsel to that effect. Of course I could not at the time verify the statement of the hon. Member, nor did the hon. Member himself do so, nor was I prepared to deny it; but the next day I addressed a letter of inquiry to the Lord Chief Justice, whether there was any foundation for the statement of the hon. Member, which was made of course in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, but to which, if made in his presence, there are not a few in the House at this moment who, remembering him in Parliament, can well imagine what sort of answer he would have given to it. The Lord Chief Justice sent me a reply which I hold in my hand. I do not propose to read it fully to the House, but I will give the substance of it. ["Read!"] Since the House wishes it, I will read it. The Lord Chief Justice writes to me as follows:—

"Court of Queen's Bench, April 17, 1875."

Dear Mr. Bulwer—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day's date, in which you call my attention to an extraordinary statement made by Mr. Whalley in the House of Commons, in which he asserted that I had on more than one occasion in the course of the trial of "The Queen v. Castro" addressed to the counsel for the defendant the observation set forth in your letter. The notion that a Judge should have addressed such an observation to the counsel for the defendant is in itself so preposterously absurd and ridiculous that it carries its own refutation with it, and I should have deemed it unworthy of notice; but as I see you are evidently shocked that a Judge, in whose Court you practise as a barrister, should have said anything so monstrous and improper, I feel that I ought not to hesitate or refuse you the means of refuting it. You have my authority and that of my brother Judges for refuting every word of Mr. Whalley's statement. It is not only untrue from the beginning to the end, but is absolutely destitute of the slightest shadow of foundation. I have not only not said what Mr. Whalley imputes to me, but nothing that by the most reckless perversion could be taken to mean it. I cannot suppose that Mr. Whalley would intentionally misrepresent me; and I presume therefore that his credulity has been imposed upon by some false report. At the same time it is difficult to suppose that any one possessed of common sense could have been misled by a statement so extravagantly absurd. But be that as it may, you have my authority for giving to Mr. Whalley's statement my most unqualified denial."

"(Signed)

"A. COCKBURN."

There is a postscript to that letter, which is as follows:—

"We fully concur in what has been said by the Lord Chief Justice, that Mr. Whalley's statement is without foundation."

That declaration is signed by Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Lush, who, having both been present during the whole time, must have known if any such statement had been made either by the Lord Chief Justice, or any other member of the Court. I will not offer any comments to the House upon the letter. It speaks for itself. I trust I have kept my word in not trespassing upon the attention of the House longer than was necessary.

I recognize, Sir, very clearly in the letter just read the emphatic language of the Lord Chief Justice, and I regret exceedingly that I do not feel myself prepared at once to acquiesce in the contradiction of the statement I made the other evening, and to express to the House—as indeed would be the case—the great satisfaction I should feel if I could conscientiously do so—namely, to avow my regret at having—whether from want of common sense or some other cause—fallen into such an error. I also beg to acknowledge the courtesy of that portion of the letter in which the Lord Chief Justice supposes that I had not invented the statement; but, at the same time, I am unable, notwithstanding that letter is countersigned by the two other Judges, to acquiesce in the condemnation which the Lord Chief Justice and the two other Judges have given, and I do not make that statement merely on hearsay. It was only a few minutes before I entered the House that I received intimation from the hon. and learned Member of his intention to bring the matter before your notice. I thanked the hon. and learned Member for that intimation; but I wish to point out that I have not had time to make the inquiry which I think necessary. I will only say at present that it is not from hearsay merely that I have made the statement which is now the subject of complaint. I have made it from my own distinct recollection of the reports in the newspapers, confirmed by statements of the hon. Member for Stoke, and re-confirmed by answers I have got from the same hon. Member to questions I addressed to him. I shall, of course, refer to such authority as I can command, and I feel assured the House will allow me as early an opportunity as possible to state the specific authority on which the statement was made, or to offer such apology as I can. In the meantime, I very much regret that when I made a similar statement on a former occasion—when by Notice I brought the question of Contempt of Court and of some of the proceedings at that trial before the House—["Order!"]

The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that, as he will be out of Order.

I will mention the subject again at a future and on as early an occasion as possible.

in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, to leave out from lines 40 to 42, inclusive, said, his object in that and subsequent Amendments depending on it, was that the City of London should bear its fair share of taxation for the general improvement of the metropolis, and contribute towards the common purse for that purpose. By the Amendment under notice the Commissioners of Sewers would be struck out of the Bill as one of the bodies to whom power would be given to levy rates for the purposes of this Act within the City. In proposing that, he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to the City or its Go- verning Body; but he felt that if the City were to remain as it was placed in the Bill, it would not bear its proper burden of taxation. There were very few unhealthy areas within the City; as large numbers of the working classes had been turned out into the surrounding districts, and the unhealthy rookeries in which many of them lived had been destroyed, so that the City would really have little or nothing to do under this Bill. He had been told that between Ludgate Hill and the River some thousands of people had been turned out; and that the poor rate had dwindled down from 8s. in the pound to one-fourth. He was aware that a considerable portion of this decrease was owing to other causes than the removal of the poor, but this had also contributed to the reduction; that in consequence of the improvements in Farringdon Street and near the Viaduct 40,000 of the poor had been turned out; and that large numbers had been removed from Clerkenwell and Moorfields. Indeed, it had been computed that the number of the working classes turned out of their dwellings in the City during the last 15 years was not far short of 100,000. The accommodation provided for the same class of persons within the City was little or nothing, and, for the most part, the people had to go to the surrounding area of the metropolis where localities hitherto healthy were rendered unhealthy by overcrowding. It was unjust, therefore, that the City should be relieved from its fair share of taxation which must necessarily arise under the Bill, and that injustice was still more striking when it was recollected that the rateable value of property in the City was about one-seventh of that of the whole of the metropolis. If that one-seventh escaped taxation of course the other six-sevenths would have to make it up. In his opinion, if there were one part of London more than another which should assist in providing healthy dwellings for the poor, it was the City, because the City was the head-quarters of business transactions; and he should like to know what class contributed more to business transactions than that immense number of labourers who lived about the Docks and in the borough which he represented. The poor were not the poor simply of the locality in which they lived; but it was justly considered that the whole metropolis had an interest in and ought to provide what was necessary for, the poorer classes. What did the City say in defence of their position under the Bill? They objected to the Metropolitan Board of Works coming into the City and invading their independence by levying any rates; but it was too late in the day for the City to bring forward such an argument, because the right had been recognized in many instances already under several Acts of Parliament, and there could be no doubt that the metropolis had gradually been treated as a whole for all sanitary purposes, and on all questions affecting the poor. Neither could it be said that the City would in this case be submitting to a Board on which it was not represented, because it formed a part of that Board, and returned three Members to that Body. Further, it was for the general good that, in respect to sanitary legislation, London should be treated as a whole, and beyond that, there was yet another claim which the metropolis had on the City of London. When the City wished to make an improvement within its borders, it came to the Metropolitan Board of Works, laid its plans before them, and submitted estimates, and asked for a contribution towards the expense of carrying out the scheme; and invariably the Metropolitan Board of Works contributed largely—as a rule, one-half—towards the expenses of those improvements. In fact, he found that within the last four years the Board of Works expended on widening and improving streets in the metropolis £403,878, of which the City of London got £202,400, and under all the circumstances, unless the City contributed towards the general purse, it would not contribute its fair share towards taxation under this Bill. He asked the Committee to look at the matter from a just point of view, and he felt sure that if they did so they would arrive at the conclusion that what he proposed was a fair proposal—that it was only in justice to the ratepayers in the surrounding part of the metropolis that the City should be called upon to pay its fair share towards carrying out what he regarded as one of the most beneficial measures we had had for many years. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

while complimenting the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) on the way in which he had brought the matter forward, regretted to have to differ from him in the conclusions at which he had arrived. Hon. Members must bear in mind that the Committee had already settled by an overwhelming majority that the City of London was to manage its own concerns under the Bill. In the whole of the metropolis there were to be two authorities, who were each within their own jurisdiction to act for themselves, the Metropolitan Board of Works and the authorities of the City of London. He put the question on a broad ground. He admitted that there were a great many Acts of Parliament which enabled the Metropolitan Board not only to levy rates all over London, but also in certain cases to interfere actually in the City itself. In some instances, however, that was not the case; and the sum and substance of the matter was, that practically no rule existed, every case being judged with regard to how the particular improvement could be best carried out. Great improvements had been effected in the City of London, but assuredly much remained to be done. It must be remembered, however, that the land and buildings which would have to be purchased for those improvements would cost much more than in almost any other portion of the metropolis; and by the proposal now under consideration, the City would be involved in unlimited expense. He had in his possession a resolution passed by the authorities of the City of London, that if the Bill became law they were prepared fully to carry it out; but he did not think they ought to have an unlimited purse placed at their disposal for the purpose, which would practically be the case if the Amendment of his hon. Friend were carried. If they said to the City of London—"You may make as many new streets as you like, and you have only to apply to the rest of the metropolis to assist you out of its funds," that arrangement would not be satisfactory. Having decided that the Corporation of the City of London were to do this work, the Committee ought to give it that advantage which every other municipal body in the country would enjoy. It was the greatest Corporation in the world, and if its hands were left unfettered, he had no doubt it would set an example not only to the other corporations of the country, but also to the metropolis itself.

supported the Amendment. He differed from the conclusions of the Home Secretary. It was true that the Committee had by an overwhelming majority decided that the City should be allowed to manage its own affairs, and he had himself voted that the City should be its own local authority; but it was a totally different thing that it should be exempted from the operation of this measure. A process had been going on by which the poor had been gradually excluded from the City, and the way to rectify that was clearly not by allowing the City to exempt itself from the operation of the Bill. The last piece of land which he had known to have been sold in the City fetched £3,000,000 per acre, and as ground was so valuable there, the City authorities could not apply to the rest of the metropolis for any unreasonable contributions. But they would do what they had been doing so admirably for the last 10 or 12 years—they would pull down dilapidated houses, and build in their place, not dwellings such as were contemplated by the Bill, but warehouses and offices which would make the ground ten times more valuable than it was at present. From a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) it appeared that the contributions of the Metropolitan Board to the improvements in the City had been nearly one-half of the entire cost, while the contributions to the other parishes of the metropolis had been only at the rate of about one-third. No one could say, therefore, that the City had been unfairly treated. Nor would there be any fear for the future that the City would not obtain its full share, for it was represented at the Metropolitan Board, and had its full weight with that body. His fear was, that they would have if anything more, rather than less than their full share of the general fund. The representatives of the City at the Metropolitan Board would have a voice in deciding on improvements affecting other parts of the metropolis, and that would be unfair if the City were not to make any contributions. He trusted, looking at the circumstances of the case, that the Home Secretary would give more consideration to the Motion than his remarks had seemed to promise.

said, that it was a mistake to suppose there was no part of the City to which this Act would be applicable. There were 39 places within the City of London which would fall within the scope of this Act, and in which the City would have to improve the dwellings of the poor. In these places there were close upon 16,000 inhabitants; of these 3,944 were in receipt of relief, 764 able-bodied, 796 not able-bodied, and 1,364 children. The City had no desire to escape from its responsibilities; but it was necessary for the purposes of the Bill that the City should be allowed to carry out its own improvements co-existently with the Metropolitan Board. He felt sure that if there should be any rivalry between the City and the Metropolitan Boards in reference to carrying out improvements, it would be an honourable rivalry, tending in both cases to the public advantage. Since 1858 the City had contributed to the Metropolitan Board of Works not less than £584,000, and having performed so many great and important works in the past, they desired no exemption for the future; all they asked was to be allowed not only to pull down, but to build up, as they had hitherto done, on their own responsibility.

said, that what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just spoken sounded all very well as far as it went; but supposing the City should do exactly as it liked, and, unless compelled, would not build houses for working classes at all, though the spaces were cleared whereon such houses might be built? We had been told that the City had already built a great many houses for the working classes; but he had seen many large spaces where there were no houses, excepting a very few, and these were very large and handsome dwellings, not at all suitable for the working classes. Looking at all the circumstances, he did not see that any case had been established at all for making a distinction between the City of London and the other parts of the metropolis, and he should certainly give his vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite.

said, the Committee had already decided by a large majority that the City of London should carry out the Act within its own boundaries. It was said that the City would not have sufficient work to do; but if they went to the eastern part of the City they would find there were rookeries enough to engage the attention and absorb the funds of the Corporation, which had already commenced the work contemplated by the Bill, and ought to be left to continue that work in independence of the rest of the metropolis.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground, that even if the City authorities should fail to provide proper dwellings for artizans displaced in consequence of any improvement which might be made, the Home Secretary had the power to compel them to do so.

supported the Amendment, although he had hitherto supported the Government. He thought there was some exaggeration in what had been said with regard to the vast amount that would have to be done in the City under the Bill. Judging from what had already been done by the City Corporation, in respect to the three blocks of buildings they had already provided, it seemed clear that their policy, if they cleared out these 39 places, would be to erect the blocks of new buildings outside the City boundaries and relieve themselves of all, or nearly all, the charge, by selling the land they had cleared at a considerably enhanced price, whilst the surrounding portions of the metropolis were heavily taxed. On these grounds he thought that it was just that they should contribute to the rates for the rest of the metropolis.

supported the Government, on the ground that the House had already accepted, on a division in which he did not vote, the principle that the City was to do its own work under the Bill. He therefore thought the Amendment would be of no use.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 19, after "local authority," to insert—

"Or to any body of trustees, society or societies, person or persons, with whom the local authority shall have engaged to carry the whole or any part of such improvement scheme into effect as provided by Clause 7."

objected to the proposal, on the ground that the Commissioners ought not to be called upon to lend money at a low rate upon any security less certain than that of the rates.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

in moving as an Amendment in page 10, line 26, to leave out the words "three and a half," in order to insert the word "four," said, he objected to the system, which had grown up of late years, of the Government lending money for philanthropic and useful objects at a lower rate than the money was worth. He argued that the Government were not in a position to lend at 3½ per cent. seeing that they were not capitalists at all in the ordinary sense of the word, but had to borrow themselves in the first instance. Besides, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had lent moneys to a number of companies for improving the dwellings of the labouring classes at 4 per cent. and he submitted that it would be a great injustice on the part of the Legislature to sanction loans for similar purposes at 3½ per cent. He should therefore move that 4 per cent. should be substituted for 3½ per cent in the Bill.

defended the proposal of the Bill, on the ground that the country would gain by it.

in moving, as an Amendment in page 10, line 30, after "shall" to leave out "not," said, he objected to the unlimited powers which the Act would give them to impose rates, and would move to limit that power to the amount which they had already authority to levy rates.

thought the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had hit upon a serious blot in the Bill. It was surely rather a dangerous power to put into the hands of town councils and local authorities to levy an unlimited tax for purposes of town improvements. As the law stood at present, corporations were limited by their own local Acts of Parliament, and when they wished to carry out improvements they were under the necessity of doing so with the money they had, or else they must go to Parliament for new powers. But here was a proposal to enable a town council to tax the people to an unlimited extent. No doubt the individual Members of Council would vote for a higher rate under a sense of responsibility to the ratepayers; but the loss of a seat in the city or town council would not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent some men from voting away people's money under the provisions of this Bill. He was sorry that the Government could not see its way to impose some restrictions, and if the clause were allowed to stand in its present form, he thought it would be almost a fatal flaw in the measure.

refused to accept the Amendment, on the ground that if carried, it would prevent many localities from making the alterations proposed by the Bill.

in accordance with a promise made at a previous stage of the Bill, moved after Clause 8 to insert the following clause—

("Power of confirming authority to modify authorized scheme.")

"The confirming authority, on its being-proved to their satisfaction, that due provision has been made or secured for the accommodation in suitable dwelling of as many persons of the working class as may be displaced in the area to which any improvement scheme relates, either in manner provided by the scheme or in some other manner, may permit the local authority to modify any part of an improvement scheme authorized by the confirming Act, which it may appear inexpedient to carry into execution in accordance with such Act."

asked, whether it was not unusual to give the Government a power to modify an Act of Parliament?

said, it was necessary to provide accommodation before people were turned out; but a great Company, like that with which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was connected, might get hold of the land and make ample provision. There would then be no reason why the company should be bound by the clause, and there ought to be some power of relaxation.

suggested that if the power were exercised, it should be under an Order in Council.

said it had been proposed that the Order should be made by the Secretary of State; but it was worthy of consideration whether it should not be exercised under an Order in Council. If so, he would cause a Proviso to this latter effect to be inserted.

moved, after Clause 12, to insert a new clause (Inquiry on refusal of local authority to make an improvement scheme).

agreed that the clause would put a little more strength into the Bill, but thought, after all, it was a very weak one.

moved after Clause 7, to add the following new clause:—

(" Completion of scheme on failure by local authority.")

"If within five years after the removal of any buildings on the land set aside by any Provisional Order as sites for working men's dwellings the local authority shall have failed to sell or let such land for the purposes prescribed by the scheme, or shall have failed to make arrangements for the erection of the said dwellings, the confirming authority may order the said land to be sold by public auction, subject to the conditions imposed by the scheme, and to a special condition on the part of the purchaser to erect upon the said land dwellings for the working classes, in accordance with plans to be approved by the local authority, and subject to such other reservations and regulations as the confirming authority may deem necessary."

He said that the object he had in view was simply to compel the authority, should it be necessary, to do that which they had undertaken to do. It was a power of which the necessity could not be doubted, though many occasions for it would probably not arise; but it was in accordance with the objects of the Bill, and he thought there would be no objection to it.

said, the proposed clause was free from the objections he had stated in the former Amendments which had been brought forward on the same subject, and he was willing to accept it. He must, however, repeat his belief that the scheme would be in full operation before the necessity for resorting to the clause could arise.

moved the insertion after Clause 16, of a clause empowering the Court of Chancery to authorize loans of the funds of charitable trusts for the purposes contemplated by the Bill.

said, he must oppose the Motion, for the reason that, under the law as it stood, application might be made to the Court of Chancery with a view to such an application of trust funds as the hon. Member suggested. It was undesirable to legislate in a partial manner with reference to the disposal of trust funds by means of a clause in a Bill like the present.

said, he also doubted whether the clause was sufficiently germane to the purposes of the Bill to enable it to be entertained by the Committee.

moved that, after Clause 21, a clause should be inserted authorizing a local authority to give compensation, where it saw fit, to the owners of premises which were demolished as unfit for human habitation under the powers of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act of 1868. By the 20th section of that Act it was provided that when a house was unfit for human habitation, and the owner had notice of it and did not take the house down, the authorities had power to take it down, sell the materials, and give back the balance, less expenses to the owner. Now that was a very harsh proceeding, and had been the means of driving very poor persons into the workhouse. He proposed to give power to the local authorities where they thought fit, to pay the maximum value of the property to be pulled down, according to the principle of the present Bill, that was, without further compensation.

intimated to the hon. Member that if the clause was carried, it would be necessary to alter the principles of the Bill.

said, that he also was of opinion that the clause was foreign to the objects of the Bill as described in the Preamble, and he was still of an adverse opinion in reference to it, as he had been before.

moved a new clause, to enable the local authorities to recover from the petitioners against a scheme, the costs of promoting the Order, when a Committee of either House of Parliament confirmed such Order without Amendment.

said, he must object to the clause in its then form, considering there should be a discretion.

objected to what he called sentimental legislation, which seemed to be the tendency of some of the Amendments.

said, he was opposed to sentimental legislation as much as any one.

said, he preferred leaving the law of costs as it now stood with reference to Provisional Orders.

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from "where the party" to "transferred," in page 21 line 26, inclusive, said, he did so with the object of striking out that part of the Schedule which provided that there should be an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator to a jury. If the Bill broke down, it would be on account of the numerous stages through which a claimant for compensation would have to pass, for the previous part of the Schedule provided that the value of the land taken for the purposes of the Bill should be decided by an arbitrator, and then after the arbitrator had given his award, had sat upon that award, and given his final award, there was to be an appeal from that to a jury. It was like having an appeal from the House of Lords to a jury at quarter sessions, or an appeal from a High Court to a police court. At a recent discussion at the Institution of Surveyors, this provision was condemned, and it was pointed out that though a jury might be the proper body to deal with a question of right or wrong, they were not the proper body to deal with a question of value, and amongst those with whom he had conversed on the subject he had heard a unanimous expression of opinion against such an appeal. The Home Secretary proposed that this appeal should be confined to cases where the award did not exceed £500, or, in fact, to cases where a jury was the least capable of deciding. He (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth), however, trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to striking out that part of the Schedule.

in opposing the Amendment, said, it seemed exceedingly desirable that the person whose land was to be taken from him should be satisfied as to the persons who were to decide upon the value of such land. If the decision was under the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act, he would have the option of a jury or an arbitration; but under the Bill an arbitrator was to be appointed, and it might be that the arbitrator would turn out to be one who had a very low estimate of the amount of compensation that ought to be given for the property that was taken, and, if so, it would be extremely hard, if he had no remedy in the shape of an appeal. The hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to have a very mean opinion of the decision of a jury; but from his (the Solicitor General's) own experience, he would much rather have the opinion of a jury than that of an arbitrator. A jury was likely to come to a fairer and more moderate conclusion than an arbitrator was.

said, he was opposed to conferring such powers on an arbitrator. He was generally an individual who had a higher opinion of himself than others entertained for him. They all knew what a barrister of seven years' standing was who accepted such an office. He objected to trust to one man to put everybody to rights.

said, the appeal was given to the local authorities as well as the owners of property. He was opposed to the Amendment, for he did not think it would be safe to leave the decision in such cases absolutely to the mercy of an arbitrator.

The Bill now before us is perhaps the most important measure with which we have to deal this Session. I do not refer to its bulk alone, though that is great enough, with its 333 clauses and 28 pages of Schedules. I view it as of great importance in both its aspect, as a Bill for consolidating and a Bill for amending sanitary law; because both these purposes may produce results for good or for evil of great consequence to the general welfare of the community. In discussing this measure as shortly as I can, I crave the indulgence of the House, because I was one of the Health of Towns Commissioners of 1846, from whose labours have arisen most of the existing legislation for the promotion of public health. Unquestionably, the law is now cumbrous and complex. It is scattered in 29 statutes, so that even a lawyer has difficulty in knowing the powers conferred by the law. The concentration and simplification of this law form a subject worthy of the attention of the House. If the object of the consolidation of the 29 separate statutes is to prepare the way for the future amendment of sanitary law, which is at present highly unsatisfactory, this Bill would be welcomed by all sanitary reformers, and I am sure the House would respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, which he made to us in introducing this measure, that we should not view its clauses in the critical spirit which we are accustomed to apply to new legislation. But this Bill is not simply one of consolidation; it is also one of amendment. This combination of two purposes induces us to inquire whether it is not intended as the fulfilment of the promise given by the present Government when it came into power—that it would devote itself to the amelioration of the health of the people. If that is so, the Bill is not a mere preparation for future legislation, but is the promised legislation itself. This view of the matter is much more serious, and is rendered probable by the words used by the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced the Bill. In fact, his speech, if it did not describe the measure as one of finality, at least, indicated it as one of long permanence. His words were, "As far as the Government could see, there was no further need for fresh legislation upon the subject;" and again, in describing his Amendments, he said—

"It is necessary to introduce them now, because it would obviously be inconvenient to touch the law on the subject for a considerable time."

Viewed in that light of permanent sanitary legislation, I do not think this Bill in any sense fulfils its purpose. If we are to spend week after week in considering its 333 clauses, in order to render sanitary legislation efficient and permanent, the Government must be prepared to discuss and consider Amendments of a far more serious character than the few and inadequate Amendments which they have introduced into this measure. For it is a matter of great difficulty to settle law upon unsettled foundations, and the foundations on which this Bill are built are altogether unsettled. By far the largest part of it is devoted to the laws relating to the constitution of local authorities, their areas of administration, their powers, and their methods of procedure. Is this settled law? Is it not one of the most solemn promises of the present Ministry that they are to reorganize local government? At present the areas of local authorities are fragmentary, bounded neither by counties, parishes, nor natural watersheds, while their duties as to local government are divided without meaning between diverse authorities in the same district. Are we to understand by this Bill either that the promises as to the reform of local government are altogether illusory, or that we are to devote a large portion of this Session to the consolidation of law which is likely to be wholly upset next year, if a large measure of local government be really brought forward? In either point of view, the prospect before us is unsatisfactory. As to the amendment of sanitary law proposed in the present Bill, I see nothing in it worthy of our attention. For if the law regarding local government which constitutes the bulk of the Bill cannot be deemed settled law, undoubtedly the law relating to sanitary powers contained in the third division of the Bill must be considered as unsettled in the highest degree. In the first place, it deals with a subject-matter in which our experience is growing from day to day; and, in the second place, the law as it stands has been found in the working to be inoperative and illusory. Consolidation of such unsettled law in any measure aiming either at finality or permanence is positively prejudicial, because it tends to stunt the natural growth of a growing subject. Bacon has pointed out this evil when he says—

"When knowledge is once comprehended in exact methods, it may perchance be further polished and illustrated and accommodated for use and practice, but it increaseth no more in bulk and substance."

This is what I fear if we pass the Bill. Our public health in England is so low that we suffer annually 125,000 preventive deaths, and have 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of serious cases of preventible sickness, weakening the industrial powers of the survivors. Existing law has proved powerless to mitigate these evils, either from deficient administration or from ineffective powers. Allow me hastily to show how unsettled and inefficient are the sanitary provisions which we are now asked to stereotype into permanent law. The 1st section of Division III. relates to sewerage. But the future of our proceedings in regard to sewerage must depend upon the nature of the measure promised in the Queen's Speech upon the pollution of rivers. If that measure prohibit, as it ought to do, the use of rivers as means of getting rid of sewage, the whole law and practice of sewerage will be profoundly altered, and the consolidation of the complex law on this subject will have been useless. I pass rapidly on. The law relating to water supply is amended by the Bill in Clauses 57 and 59. But the powers for water supply in rural districts are wholly insufficient, and rural authorities are continually making representations on this head; yet the old law is to be stereotyped in a measure which leaves rural districts out in the cold. As regards the law of nuisances I would remark that the Bill exempts from its operation some of the most important industries, as the factories, obviously because they are under distinct administration, which, however, is not a sanitary one. Whether this is wise I will not stop to inquire; but I am quite sure it is not wise to exempt, as this Bill does, some of the most offensive accumulations of manufactures from the operation of the law. I would also say in passing, that I regret that no improved definition of a nuisance has been given in this Bill. The Legislature intended that anything should be deemed a nuisance which was offensive to the community or injurious to health. But a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench requires the injury to health to be established; and as this is often difficult of proof, the law is scarcely workable in its present form. I pass rapidly to the section on infectious diseases. No section of a Health Bill could be more important. The law as it stands is consolidated with scarcely any attempt at amendment. But is the existing law operative? In answer to that I will quote a passage from the Report of Dr. Child, the intelligent Medical Officer of Health in Oxfordshire. He says—

"As to the powers at present possessed by sanitary authorities and their officers of dealing with infectious disease.…. it is not possible to imagine anything more illusory than the supposed powers now possessed by them."

Well, we are called upon to re-enact these illusory powers without amendment. I am wrong: there is an Amendment in regard to the provision of mortuaries, and the removal of dead bodies to them. But if my right hon. Friend, who has shown such courage in regard to the dead, had shown like courage in respect to the living, we might have welcomed his stereotyping of efficient laws for the prevention of infectious disease. But to stereotype ineffective and illusory law is absolutely mischievous. The Bill of 1872 introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) went much further for the protection of the living than this Bill, which simply re-enacts illusory powers. Within the last few years our knowledge regarding the modes of propagation of infectious diseases has largely increased. Let me quote a couple of cases, both of which came under my own observation. A woman in a dairy, recovering from scarlet fever, milked the cows, and introduced scarlet fever into forty families which she supplied with milk. One of these houses was a school, and it broke up in consequence of the disease, sending its scholars, without any attempt at disinfection, to different parts of Scotland. New foci of disease were established by the seed thus sown broadcast, and scarlet fever became general. "Would it have been an improper use of law, if the dairy woman, in the first instance, had been restrained from spreading the infectious disease under which she suffered? Would it have been an unwise sanitary provision, if simple and well-known methods of disinfection had been applied, under a skilled officer of health, to the persons and clothes of the scholars, before they were sent as infectious centres throughout the country? That instance of the distribution of infectious disease occurred in Scotland; but another example in which there were several hundred cases of attack, chiefly in Marylebone, occurred in the metropolis less than two years ago, and will be in the memory of the House. A dairy company received milk from a country farm in which a man had died from typhoid fever. The drainage of the house found its way into a well, and the water of this well became mixed with the milk. Many of the houses furnished with this milk were also supplied with typhoid poison, which suddenly appeared apparently as an epidemic in the best parts of London. Both these cases are instances on a large scale of the distribution of contagium from a single source which ought easily to have been prevented. But the law as it stands provides no remedy against such wholesale cases of infectious poisoning, either through food or water, and the latter is a most common source of spreading disease. It is quite true that the foundation of such legislation is scarcely laid in this country, and yet methods for isolating the sick and for preventing the spread of contagium are to be found in the Mosaic records. Still we are now only groping our way to legislation on this subject. The country should not believe that the consolidation in this Bill, of inefficient and illusory powers scattered throughout various statutes, will put us in possession of a code of value. There are the usual clauses for the prevention of epidemics; but they are founded on the existence and general prevalence of disease, and they aim rather at their wider extension than at their prevention. In the administration of the Poor Law, it is not necessary that there should be many eases of starvation before relief is given to the poor. But in the prevention of disease it is assumed that there ought to be many deaths before you presume to stop the ravages of disease upon the living. The Local Government Board acts well as a central audit for the accounts of the Boards of Guardians in the relief of the poor, but it neglects its duties as a central audit of death accounts throughout the country. It does not dream of inquiring why one population has double the mortality of another, and does not draw the attention of local authorities to their reckless extravagance in permitting their death accounts to rise so fearfully. That would be a central audit worth having, and there is a medical officer attached to the Central Board eminently qualified to perform it; but the notion of such duties does not fall within the conception of a Board administered according to its official notions. Yet, after all, deaths form but a crude index of the disease which has been at work. As a mariner does not delay to trim his vessel until the storm has done its work, and cast its wrecks upon the shore, but forecasts the storm, and prepares himself for it, so should a Department of State medicine, by watching the risings of disease in districts, give the local authorities timely warning of the coming storms. The measures to enable them to ride through these storms are neither occult nor difficult; but the law does not enable them to be applied. For this purpose a knowledge of the existence of disease in a locality is required. But existing law does not provide that the medical officer shall necessarily be informed in regard to disease, even when treated at the public expense, and far less in that occurring in private families. So that by the time his attention is wakened to the existence of a preventible disease, its diffusion has become so general as to be beyond the powers of restraint. The Bill is not improved on this point, for it simply proposes to re-enact powers which experience has shown to be illusory. I have only one other subject on which I propose to touch, and that is the law relating to medical officers of health. The clauses relating to them are numbered 184 and 278. The medical officers of health are more and more becoming the motive powers of sanitary legislation. In the Artizans Dwellings Bill of this year, they form the primary motive power. Hence the regulations regarding them in any general Health Bill are of paramount importance. Now, is the present law, in its relations to medical officers of health, satisfactory to any one—to the local authorities, to the public, or to the officers themselves; or does the Bill introduce Amendments calculated to render the law more comprehensible and more operative for good than it now is? See how the case stands. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) passed his great measure of sanitary reform, he had to deal with difficulties which can now easily be depreciated, but which then were formidable. He found sanitary laws in chaos, and executed a great work in reducing them to some sort of form. The whole country was organized into sanitary districts, of which there are now 1,500, each with its appointed medical officer of health as the agent for disease prevention. All these districts were brought into relations with the central authority, and had to be instructed in their duties. Hence it was inevitable that considerable friction and even confusion should exist in organization. The local authorities had very varying ideas of their duties and responsibilities. Some were highly intelligent, and combined with neighbouring authorities to appoint a joint medical officer of skilled qualifications for his work. Others tried to defeat the law, and to this day a certain number of the local authorities decline to obey the law, and have refused to appoint medical officers of health. Other local authorities evaded the law by mock appointments, giving the medical officer £5 or £10 a-year, while the combined districts were giving £800 per annum. Some profess to pay by piece-work—that is, by guinea fees, and take care that no demand for work arises. In fact, in the administration of the law there is no uniformity, and complaints are made that the form of the law makes good administration impossible. The Sanitary Commission, presided over by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley), had recommended that the Poor-Law medical officers should be made health officers, and looked to some 4,000 appointments. But they forgot that the knowledge of the prevention of disease requires a special training, and is rarely communicated to those studying for the cure of disease. Hence, to get 4,000 medical officers of health was a medical rhapsody. I am not complaining because this law did not fix salaries. The local authority—that is, the purchaser of the commodity, may safely be left to fix the salary of the medical officer, provided the Local Government Board had fixed his duties and qualifications. In such a case, the market value of a medical officer's services would soon have adjusted itself by the law of supply and demand. But the law neither insists nor provides for qualifications in the officers to whom such important duties are entrusted. In minor matters the law is very careful as to qualifications. The Local Government Board insists that a public vaccinator must be qualified, so must a public analyst under the Adulteration Act. But in the great subject of State medicine, applied to the preservation of our lives, when our health and the expenditure of heavy rates is involved, the moving power—the medical officer of health—may be entirely ignorant of his public duties, for the law requires no qualifications. Before the compulsory appointment of medical officers of health there were few indeed in the country, but their names had a meaning. They were persons of skilled technical knowledge of State medicine, like Dr. Letheby of London, Dr. Trench of Liverpool, Dr. Littlejohn of Edinburgh, and the like—men who knew their work, and did it. But the compulsory law destroyed this meaning; for it neither made mention of distinctive qualifications or duties, nor did it give power to the Local Government Board to fix them. It was as if the law had said to the local authorities—You are to appoint an algebraic X as your medical officer of health. His functions are unknown to you; they are equally unknown to us. Nevertheless, the law says you shall appoint your X as you best can. Is it surprising, under such circumstances, that the existing law has produced dissatisfaction to every one—to the local authorities, to the public, to the officers of health? The late President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) hoped to induce the local authorities to appoint efficient men by offering to pay half the salaries from Imperial funds. This was a good conception; but none of us calculated on the apathy of the local authorities, who found it cheaper and pleasanter to pay a doctor £5 to do nothing, than to pay the moiety of £100 to an active reformer of local abuses. The Local Government Board then tried to get better men by combining districts to appoint medical officers. They were, indeed, appointed by combined authorities; but the law gave no powers of management to these authorities after combination; so the medical officers were under the management of inconsistent and uncombined authorities—that is, practically they were under no management at all. If they were able and energetic men, they made abundant work for themselves, in spite of the defective provisions of law. Some of them have as much as 1,000 square miles to supervise; others have a single parish. In the first instance, the medical officer is an inspector general of health, with no definite relation to any sub-inspectors. The Poor Law medical officers might usefully be employed in such a relation, but the law does not allow it. Now, Clause 278 of this Bill tries to remedy this defect. Its purpose is to bring the local officers of health to the aid of such a general inspector. But this proposal is either too much or too little. It is too much in its present form, for it gives the Local Government Board the power to require two medical officers in each district, when the old law gave powers only to appoint one. It is too little in the interests of either efficiency or economy, for it does not define the extent of districts and does not give powers for united management when they are formed. Why not appoint such general officers of health for the county, as in the case of county analysts? Or, if you are not prepared for that, make the officer of health purely local, while the medical inspector over a large area might be an officer paid by, and responsible to, Government. But the new Amendments do not remove the confusion from the present law, and do not help us one step forward in more efficient local government. I have now done. My object has been to show that sanitary law, in its existing state, is not adapted for consolidation, if that consolidation has any pretension either to finality or permanence. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board may be in the confidence of the Cabinet, and know that the re-organization of local government is so distant that it would be useless to wait for it before he consolidates the laws which now relate to local authorities. If the reform of local government be beyond the powers of the Administration, then the laws relating to existing areas and procedure, which form the bulk of this Bill, may be consolidated with advantage. But do not let us stamp into permanent consolidated law the agglomeration of confused and illusory powers which relate to the prevention of disease, without making a serious effort to amend them. The present Government are especially pledged to the amendment of sanitary law. The Prime Minister used these remarkable words in his speech at Manchester—

"I think public attention ought to be concentrated on sanitary legislation. I cannot impress upon you too strongly my conviction of the importance of the Legislature and society uniting together in favour of these important results. After all, the first consideration of a Minister should be the health of the people."

It is no fulfilment of this important pledge to ask us to consolidate law which is confused and inoperative, without Amendments of a serious character. The country has spent much money for the improvement of its sanitary condition. What are the results? They are not apparent to us. Some attribute failure to defective administration; others to defective law. Which is true? What the country desires is that preventable disease should be prevented. There are no Reports from the Local Government Board to show that this result is in any way achieved or in course of achievement, and for no less object ought local authorities to be harassed by a central government, and be made to expend Imperial taxes and local rates for objects which we have no evidence are attained. If administration is at fault, let it be improved. If law is defective, ask Parliament to make it effective and operative. But do not let us delude the country with the hope that we are about to improve the state of public health, because we are called upon to consider a mass of crude and undigested law, brought together into one Bill of Consolidation without attempt at serious amendment. Such a Bill may save local authorities as well as the Central Board some trouble; but it is not likely in any way to ameliorate disease or to save the community from any notable portion of its annual loss of 125,000 preventible deaths. If, however, the Bill, notwithstanding the finality speech of the right hon. Gentleman, be brought forward simply for the purpose of broadening the foundation on which future sanitary law is to be built, then with every sanitary reformer I will welcome consolidation. But I conceive it would be wasting the time of this House to ask us to go to the serious consideration of this Bill in Committee as any settlement of the demands for sanitary reform, when it simply repeats law which has been found so inoperative, without amending it in any important points.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member the University of Edinburgh, in thinking that the present Bill would be useful as a consolidating measure, but that it could not be regarded as offering a settlement of the laws relating to the health of the people. He trusted that both parties would allow it to pass as a Consolidation Bill, without much discussion, and that the opportunity would shortly be given to the House to consider other Amendments of a more important character with reference to the subject, which might have a more important effect on the sanitary condition of the country. In his opinion, there was a decided objection to the omission, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed, of the 3rd clause of the Bill.

said, he was not at all disposed to quarrel with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) in respect of the observations he had made upon the details of the Bill, or to shrink from accepting the challenge which he had thrown out. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, quite misunderstood the remarks which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had made in introducing the Bill. He would not, at that time, discuss the general question in its details; but he might say at once that the Bill was not intended to stereotype the existing law, and that it was not taken up in fulfilment of any engagement made by the Prime Minister. Nor had it been introduced with the slightest idea of interfering with those measures of local taxation which the Government expected to deal with by-and-by. It was primarily a Consolidation Bill and, as such, would no doubt clear the way for the adoption of those reforms in the existing law which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated. The Government did not intend, at the present moment, to propose any violent changes in the sanitary legislation which had been so recently adopted, because they saw no prospect of carrying them into effect either this or, it might be, the next Session, and the best policy, in their opinion, was to put forward in a presentable point of view, equally comprehensive and intelligible, the whole of the existing sanitary laws. In performing this task, however, they very soon found that it was absolutely necessary to insert Amendments, in order to reconcile the conflicting and sometimes unintelligible provisions of the various Acts passed since 1848, and thus the Bill assumed its present form. He believed it would be found a good starting point from which to survey past sanitary legislation and a good foundation for future improvements. In framing it he had had in his mind the results of consolidation as affecting the Acts relating to discipline in the Navy. A Bill was passed in 1861 which brought into one focus, so to speak, the provisions of eight or ten previously existing Acts on that subject; but it was not until 1866, after undergoing various changes, that the Naval Discipline Act assumed its complete shape. If the present Bill, therefore, was passed, he would not shrink from proposing such further Amendments as might be shown to be necessary. He ventured to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that course was the best which could be pursued under the circumstances. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the unsatisfactory state of sanitary law, he might say that, in his opinion, a great deal had been done of late years. Instead of the general apathy which formerly prevailed with regard to sanitary measures, they found local authorities everywhere bestirring themselves for the public good. That was a fact upon which he thought they had good reason to congratulate themselves. His right hon. Friend was very anxious to have a set of competent medical authorities throughout the Kingdom. In that direction, too, very considerable strides had been and were being made, excellent Reports being issued under the direction of the Local Government Board for the instruction of medical officers throughout the country. With regard to the prevention of disease, he believed a good deal would be done by the local authorities, when they were once alive to the necessities of the case; but he thought his right hon. Friend a little forestalled the opinion of the country in the matter, and was in too great a hurry to believe that private individuals were anxious to be controlled and directed to the extent he suggested. The public, however, was being rapidly educated in these matters, and there was great reason to be satisfied with the progress that had been made. The Public Health Act, which constituted the local sanitary authorities, was only four years old; but a very gratifying amount of work had already been done under it. The great difficulty in administering from a central office powers which interfered to some extent with local self-government must be familiar to every hon. Gentleman; and they must all feel that although the Local Government Department possessed a great deal of persuasive power, and no small amount of compulsory power, it was unable, and would, he believed, always be unable to direct in detail the action of the local authorities. With regard to the substantial Amendments of which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had given an indication, one-half were directed to that particular portion of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred. He certainly looked forward to a Consolidation Bill passing, as it were, through several successive editions before it reached its final shape. Amendments which practical experience showed to be required, not going to the foundation of the measure, but rather intended to make it work more smoothly, might be dealt with in the Bill as a whole; and if it should pass with those Amendments, he thought the House would have done a considerable work, and one which would be sufficient for the present Session. The Amendments he would propose were explained in a memorandum which would be circulated among hon. Members. They were of a supplementary character merely, and he would deprecate any proposals to make radical changes in the existing machinery of the law. As to the manner in which the Bill had been drawn up, it was only right he should say that in the numerous communications he had received from all parts of the country, offering an endless variety of suggestions, the opinion was nowhere expressed that the existing law was not set forth by the Bill in a clear and proper manner. It was natural for Governments to view Consolidation Bills with some horror, for there was a danger of every clause being discussed at a length which would make progress impossible. He hoped the House would agree with him in thinking it was desirable to confine themselves to moderate Amendments in the present instance. He should, however, be happy to give his best attention to the suggestions thrown out from all quarters, and would take every opportunity of making such improvements and additions as might be thought of a reasonable character. He agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that the experiment that they were now trying with regard to the consolidation of the law was of an important character, in this respect, that it might afford a precedent for future legislation of a similar kind. If the House should be of opinion that this plan of consolidating the law was a plan worth trying, no great harm could come of it; but, on the contrary, the amendment of the law might be enormously facilitated, and on so interesting and important a subject as the sanitary legislation of the country they might lay a foundation for dealing with the Poor Law Acts and others of a similar character which had hitherto been brought before Parliament in a piecemeal manner. He believed the result of such legislation would be of great benefit to the country.

trusted that the House would not only read the Bill a second time, but would aid the right hon. Gentleman in Committee in making it as perfect as circumstances would allow. His experience of sanitary matters led him to believe that the country was not yet ripe for any large measure of compulsory sanitary legislation. The consolidating portion of the measure was very important, and the amending portion contained some points which might prove of great benefit to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair), complained that the Bill was not strong enough or coercive enough. He was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman could be for strong and coercive legislation; but he held that any attempt by means of harsh legislation to force on the country provisions for which it was not ripe would not be attended with success.

desired to know whether or not his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was to be understood, speaking not of this Session, but of the next, to intimate that no further action would be taken by Her Majesty's Government with reference either to sanitary questions or questions of local government.

explained that what he meant was that the Government, in introducing this Bill, had no special object in view which would interfere with any measure of local reform which they might think fit to bring forward this Session or the next.

said, he was quite satisfied with the explanation. There were some points in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) which he felt bound to notice, owing to his former connection with the Local Government Department, and to the fact that he had introduced the Public Health Act of 1870. His right hon. Friend had said that the sanitary authorities were scattered and the areas indefinite. He (Mr. Stansfeld) entirely differed from his right hon. Friend. The sanitary authorities were not scattered, and the areas were definite. The whole country was covered by sanitary areas, none of them overlapping; and there was one sanitary authority and no more for every sanitary area. His right hon. Friend had taken some exception to the appointment by joint authorities of medical officers of health over large areas, and seemed to prefer that each of the 1,400 or 1,500 sanitary districts of the country should appoint its own medical officers of health, who should be superintended over larger areas by officers appointed by the central authority. He was bound to take issue on that point with his right hon. Friend. When he introduced the Public Health Act of 1870 he pledged himself to the principle of local government, and he remained true to that principle in the administration of the Act. His right hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. Sclater-Booth) very wisely said that all these measures ought to be considered as educational measures. That was essentially his (Mr. Stansfeld's) view. He did not believe that we could make people healthy, either in their houses or their lives, by Acts of Parliament or by centralized authority. He believed in educating and training the local authorities to take care of their citizens, and he was content, whatever pains and labour might be necessary in order to accomplish that object, that Parliament, the law, and the State should educate the localities to fulfil that function. Had the lines of the Public Health Bill of 1870 been drawn upon a purely scientific conception, as to the instrumentality which might be considered the most potent for giving effect to the measure in the short period of four years during which it had been in operation, we should have had a reaction over the whole country against the progress of sanitary legislation; whereas, he would refer with confidence to the Reports of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board to show that very great practical progress in sanitary operations had been effected, and still greater progress in that educational sense in which he had spoken of training localities and their local administrators in the administration of the law. He was quite conscious of the variety that would exist when he passed the Bill. He accepted that variety as part of the educational character of the work. Without such variety, we should have no sanitary education in the administration of the law. But though he had foreseen and accepted that variety, he was not without definite hope of what it would bring forth. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh had expressed his belief that the appointment of medical officers of health on the half-pay system had, generally speaking, been a failure; but he (Mr. Stansfeld) did not admit that, and he did not think the President of the Local Government Board would confirm it. He did not rely upon it as a temptation or bait, and he never attempted to exercise any pressure on the local authorities, who were left perfectly free to take their own way in the appointment of medical officers of health under the obligation imposed upon them by statute; but it was only fair that if the central authority—the Government of this country—was to pay half the salaries of these officers, it should have some share, not in the individual appointments, but in the indication of the area for which the appointment should be made, the terms of each appointment, and the salaries to be paid to the medical officers appointed. He would now say a word or two on the Consolidation Bill of his right hon. Friend. He persisted in calling it a Consolidation Bill. His right hon. Friend called it an amending Bill as well; but, in his (Mr. Stansfeld's) opinion, there could not be a Consolidation Bill which was not also an amending Bill. He understood that his right hon. Friend would, without loss of time, put them in possession of the Amendments, so as to enable them to know what was purely consolidation and what was amendment of the law. But the Amendments he said were slight, and he asked the House to accept the Bill as a Consolidation Bill. The Bill consisted of 333 sections, and if it was not essentially consolidation, and accepted as such, if they were to discuss it clause by clause there could not be the slightest chance of passing it this Session. Treating it as a Consolidation Bill, he had examined it with sufficient care to be enabled, and he felt called on, to say that it was an accurate and reputable piece of work and would be an extremely useful measure. His right hon. Friend had not spoken of it as a finality Bill; but by the consolidation of the law it would accomplish two great practical objects of the greatest importance—making, in the first place, the law more intelligible in administration, and, secondly, what was of still more importance, would facilitate its future progress and amendment; and for these reasons he heartily approved of it, and hoped the House would advance it with rapidity so as to pass it this Session.

said, that in dealing with the question they would have to take the rateable area. The railways might first of all be assessed, and then the amount for each parish might be taken.

approved the Bill, but it being a very large and important one, he hoped hon. Members would have the promised explanations and Amendments placed in their hands as soon as possible.

said, he thought it was rather a difficult thing to say whether they approved or disapproved of a Bill containing 333 clauses. He wished to know whether he was correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that he was anxious that Government Medical Inspectors should supervise all the local medical officers? If that was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, it was not shared by the country. The local authorities were perfectly willing, in cases of difficulty, to appeal to the central sanitary authority. If it was the intention of the Local Government Board to insist on having a central authority of medical officers, he felt certain that it would be the most unpopular thing ever attempted throughout the length and breadth of this country. He wished also to know whether his right hon. Friend had attempted to amend that which was known to be an evil in the last Bill—namely, the power of a small town to call upon agricultural districts outside to make a sanitary improvement for the benefit simply of that small town? Was there any provision in this Bill which would compel small towns, say such as contained not more than 2,000 inhabitants, to pay the whole of the expense of any sanitary improvements that might be made in them? It was manifestly unfair that they should be able to call upon outlying districts to pay for such improvements. He wished his right hon. Friend, further, to state which portion of this Bill was new matter, which part was contained in the old Bill, and which was the consolidating part of this Bill. Before they consolidated and amended the present law, they should ascertain whether or not they were going, by too rapid strides, towards that sanitary improvement which so many people thought desirable for this country. No doubt, it was desirable; but the people of the country were not prepared to advance in the matter with these rapid strides which some persons thought absolutely necessary. We ought not to advance at a pace which would involve the enormous expenses which some places had been called upon to pay under the existing Acts.

in reply, said, there was power in this Bill to rate separately any district which would benefit by an improvement. His right hon. Friend had, in answer to observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh and of the right hon. Member for Halifax, said there was no idea of constituting a great central authority of medicine. He believed the Amendments which were proposed by his right hon. Colleague would be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday morning.

said, that water was to be considered as associated with food, and should be subject to analysis. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 21, after "drugs," to insert "or water."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, the omission of the word "knowingly," on the ground that if it were necessary in order to obtain a conviction to prove that a vendor of adulterated articles knew they were adulterated, it would be impossible to obtain a conviction. He thought that the framers of the Bill, by the use of the words, had left a door open for persons charged with offences against it to escape in certain circumstances in relation to the evidence.

thought the hon. Gentleman opposite should have directed his observations to a subsequent part of the clause, and not to that, the first part of it. As the first part of the clause would impose a punishment of six months in case a person permitted articles injurious to health to be bought from him, it was only reasonable that the practice of the criminal law should, to a certain extent, be followed, and that a guilty knowledge should be proved against him before convicting him.

thought his hon. Friend was right in asking for the first "knowingly" to be left out, but he would preserve the second "knowingly." He could not understand how anybody could be discovered to have been guilty of adulteration, unless it could be proved that he had knowingly done so.

said, that magistrates were always tender with a man who broke the law from ignorance, and he would keep the word "knowingly" where it was in the Bill. That was the spirit of our laws.

said, he was of opinion that the onus of proving his innocence should be thrown upon a tradesman who mixed one thing with another so as to be injurious to health.

would retain the word "knowingly." The House did not wish to punish offences committed accidentally. The very essence of the offence which it was desired to put down was, that the person who sold these adulterated goods should knowingly and wilfully do so.

predicted that the Act would be quite inoperative, if the word "knowingly" were retained.

contended that if a mixture was made of various ingredients and sold as another article, that might be held to be done knowingly, and the retention of the word was unnecessary.

said, the argument of the hon. Member supplied the strongest ground for striking out the word. The accidental tradesman would be sufficiently protected by the clause; but the word "knowingly" would enable a trader to escape conviction when he ought to be convicted.

thought the Committee ought to know that the Bill was regarded with great suspicion by the public generally throughout the country, because it weakened the security which a former Act was intended to give against the practices and usages of trade, from which they had suffered so much. The general impression was that a few years ago a Bill was introduced which seemed to reach the root of the evil; but the present Bill went quite in the other direction, and all sorts of excuses would be made that the tradesman had procured the adulterated article from some one else. If the Committee were in earnest in putting down adulteration, they ought not to insert these unnecessary words.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the original Act. The clause exactly followed the language of the old law, except that it used the word "knowingly" instead of "wilfully."

said, it was important the word "knowingly" should be taken out, because it gave a wrong impression in regard to the wish of the Committee. If the word were omitted, it was by no means likely that an innocent man would be convicted.

said, that an Act of this kind in Dublin had been obstructed for several years by the insertion of this word "knowingly." The City analyst again and again brought the vendors of "sweetstuff's" before the magistrates; but they were always able to throw the onus back upon the manufacturers, and the children continued for some years to be poisoned, until an alteration of the Act could be obtained. He warned the Committee that if the word "knowingly" were left in the clause it would obstruct the operation of the Act in the same way.

said, that the discussion was proceeding on the basis that adulteration was general, whereas the Committee of which he had been a Member came to a very different conclusion. The fact was, there was very little adulteration in this country since the adoption of low tariffs, inasmuch as it did not pay. He was, therefore, opposed to making the law so strict that magistrates would not convict under it. Under the existing law much hardship had been inflicted upon traders. The Bill might be confined to farm produce, for the two great articles which were the subjects of adulteration were milk and butter.

hoped that if the word "knowingly" were retained, it would be explained and defined. He did not see how it was possible for a tradesman to adulterate the articles which he sold unless he did so knowingly.

said, that the first "knowingly" was not required in the clause. If a person mixed deleterious materials with food, he must be taken to do so with the intent to adulterate. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the general feeling of the Committee and accept the Amendment.

concurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that there was not so great an amount of adulteration practised as some hon. Members seemed to think, and that opinion was borne out by the Report of the Select Committee. He would like to know how people in this country would get their noyeau, if the use of prussic acid was altogether prohibited.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 6, after "material," the insertion of the words, "whereby to reduce its value as an article of commerce." The effect would be to prevent the adulteration of food by substances which were not poisonous—such as of milk by water.

pointed out that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman alluded were sufficiently provided for by Clause 5.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to omit in line 8 the word "knowingly," referring to the sale of adulterated drugs, and remarked that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had told them that if they made the law too stringent magistrates would not convict; but if they made it too lax they could not convict. Ignorance could, in no case, be held as an excuse for the violation of the law, and it was more important to omit this word here than in the former case.

said, that it would be extremely hard upon shopkeepers if the word "knowingly" were omitted from the clause, because they would in that case be liable to a fine of £50 for any improper ingredient which might be introduced into an article which they received from the wholesale manufacturer abroad.

hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would not go to a division. How was it possible a village shopkeeper could absolutely know whether an article he bought of the wholesale dealers was adulterated or not, and to subject him to a penalty of £50 for selling an adulterated article unknowingly was somewhat unreasonable. He did not think they could in justice strike out this word.

believed that the word must be retained.

hoped hon. Members would not go on libelling and saying such hard things of a large number of their constituents who were just as honest as they were. He opposed the Amendment. The Committee had ascertained that almost the only articles adulterated were milk and butter.

said, that the Bill was not brought forward to deal with the honest, but with the dishonest dealer, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member for Glasgow would divide on the question.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. W. E. Forster) he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, the insertion in lieu of the word "of," of the words "not exceeding" with a view of leaving it to the discretion of the magistrates whether a lesser penalty than £50 might not be inflicted.

agreed with the Amendment. He had been amazed at the magnitude of the penalty. A man might kick his wife to death for less.

spoke from experience on the folly of inserting large fines. He considered a penalty of £50 excessive.

said, that the penalty was to be imposed on persons who knowingly poisoned articles of food consumed largely by children and others.

reminded the hon. Baronet the Member for Fins-bury, that under the 19th clause of the Bill, power was given for the mitigation of fines imposed under the Act.

supported the Amendment.

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury would persist in his Amendment, as the clause referred to by the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the case.

said, he did not think the penalty named in the clause as by any means too severe, regard being had to the fact that the offence must be proved to have been knowingly committed.

said, he did not accept the interpretation given by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh of the 19th clause, but was still willing to adopt the Amendment. He would remind the Committee that the six months' imprisonment was retained.

thought that penalties might be cumulative for many acts of adulteration, which might cost the offender £150 instead of £50.

in moving, as an Amendment, to add at end of clause—"No person shall be permitted to mix, colour, or stain any food while in Her Majesty's Custom House Stores," said, that a practice existed of adulterating Irish whisky with a coarse and deleterious Scotch spirit. Dundalk was celebrated for its manufacture of whisky, and some persons finding that out, had availed themselves of that reputation, and were importing from Scotland a spirit called "silent spirit" to mix with it. That spirit was not made from pure malt, but from any sort of rubbish that could be distilled, and being bought at 2s. 8d. a gallon, of course, the genuine article, which was worth 6s., could be easily undersold. What was scarcely fit to be given to pigs would make good spirit of this kind. There were some distillers in Scotland, and a few also in England and in Ireland, who produced this spirit with Coffy's patent still, and from any sort of rubbish, no matter how inferior. This spirit when imported was used in the Custom House stores for the adulteration of whisky, to the risk of the health and even the sanity of the people. He once asked a friend of his to try this liquor. He did not tell him what sort of stuff it was, and so he drank it under the impression that it was a genuine article. Seing he made a wry face over it, he asked him what he thought of the spirit, and he replied that when drinking it he felt as if a torchlight procession were going down his throat. There was no doubt about the matter, that doctoring shops were set up with the sanction and connivance of the Customs authorities in Her Majesty's bonded stores. In some of the vats in Dublin containing thousands of gallons of mixed spirits there was not one gallon of Dublin whisky, although it was sold as the pure and genuine article. [Laughter.] This might be for hon. Members a laughable matter; but before they laughed they ought to recollect that a large portion of the revenue of the country was raised from the duty on whisky. Nine of the vats to which he had already alluded contained 23,934 gallons, of which 10,849 gallons were silent whisky, and not more than 1,660 Dublin whisky, the remainder being composed of different country whiskies. The permit issued by the Customs authorities gave no information, or next to none. It was the same as that for sending out the genuine article, and all it said was that the whisky was plain, ex vat, but it did not mention what the vat contained. Three-fourths of the misery, evil, madness, and destitution caused by this wretched concoction ought to be placed at the door of the Government. He believed that the object in allowing this fraud to be perpetrated was to destroy that article of Irish industry, the manufacture of pure Irish whisky. ["No, no," and laughter.] That was no laughing matter. The Irish woollen trade had been destroyed by an Act of Parliament; but in the present case the same thing was being done by more subtle means—namely, by a deception on the public. The injustice was one which, although not having any pecuniary interest in any Irish distillery, he was determined to protest against and to expose until the Government inter- fered and absolutely forbade its perpetration.

believed that a quantity of German spirits made from potatoes was also sent into Dublin, and then re-exported to this country under the sanction of a permit as genuine Irish whisky, and recommended in The Wine Trade Review as pure unblended spirits. If beer from Burton came to London, and was here mixed with an inferior article, as was the case with Irish whisky, he believed that complaints would not be made in vain to the Board of Customs. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Limerick pressed his Amendment to a division, he should certainly support him.

said, he considered the matter they were discussing as altogether outside the Bill. If the question was as regarded mixing whisky with any article injurious to health, that was already provided for by the Bill; but to take advantage of this clause to prohibit the mixing of any articles of any kind in the Custom House would be to go beyond the provisions of the Bill. The words would apply to the mixing of old sherry, for instance, with a wine of younger vintage. Where an injury was done by mixing Irish whisky with spirits of a deleterious character and destructive of health, the Bill provided for such a case. If the hon. Member for the county of Limerick and the hon. Member for Dublin did not press the Amendment, but came to him, he would consult with the practical officers of the Customs, and endeavour to see what satisfactory settlement of the question could be arrived at. He should be glad to have an opportunity of arranging the matter so as to prevent further complaints.

said, the consumers got no information that the whisky was blended, as there was only the letter "B" rudely scratched on the casks. He would accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

thought the matter was within the scope of the Bill, but would advise his hon. Friend to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, which seemed to him (Mr. Butt) to be fair, and calculated to meet the case, on condition, however, that he should not be put to the test of tasting any of this whisky. If nothing could be done, the Amendment could be again brought up on the Report.

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 17 and 18, to omit the words, "of a nature injurious to health" in the case of drugs, which might be adulterated to an extent very prejudicial to the health and even to the life of a patient, by means of substances which were not injurious to health. Besides, chemists were not likely to do anything ignorantly, and therefore there could be no hardship in compelling them to sell their drugs in a state of purity.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was not always possible for druggists to obtain articles in a perfectly pure state.

supported the Amendment.

observed, that the object of the Amendment was provided for in the 6th clause.

said, he wished to substitute for the Amendment the words, "so as injuriously to affect the quality of the drug."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, the omission of the word "knowingly," on the ground that the persons who would be affected by this clause would not be ignorant shopkeepers, but chemists and druggists, who ought to be better informed as to the nature and quality of the articles they sold.

opposed the Amendment.

said, he was apprehensive if the Committee adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh University the result would be confusion and embarrassment.

said, he had received representations from the Pharmaceutical Society, who could scarcely be supposed to desire the sale of adulterated drugs, against the principle of the Amendment. He therefore hoped the proposal would not be pressed.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment in deference to what appeared to be the will of the House, and not because he had changed his view.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 22, leave out all after "shall," and insert—

"Knowingly sell any article of food or drug which is not of the quality demanded by the purchaser, nor shall any person abstract from any article of food or drug any part thereof, so as to impair its quality, with intent that the same may be sold in its impaired state, as being in its unimpaired state, or knowingly sell any article of food or drug so impaired under a penalty of twenty pounds for a first offence and of fifty pounds for every subsequent offence:

"Provided that no person shall be liable to prosecution under this Act for selling any compounded drug prepared in accordance with the written prescription of a registered medical practitioner, submitted for that purpose to the seller, or with the regulations prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia issued by the General Medical Council, or with a basis to be laid down by the Pharmaceutical Society, or the Privy Council, or with the provisions of 'The Pharmacy Act, 1868:'

"Provided also, That no person shall be liable to prosecution under this Act for selling any article of food or drug, mixed with any material not injurious to health, or impaired as aforesaid, who shall, at the time of delivering such article of food or drug, supply to the person receiving the same notice of its being so mixed or impaired, by means of a label, legibly and distinctly written or printed, stating the mode and extent in and to which such article of food or drug has been mixed or impaired."

hoped his noble Friend would not press the Amendment.

consented to withdraw it.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "Where" to end of line 29, and insert—

"Where any matter or ingredient the presence of which is harmless when mixed therewith for the purpose of preserving it."

opposed the Amendment.

supported it. Sugar was mixed with cocoa constantly for the purpose of improving it for immediate consumption.

said, he also supported the Amendment, so far as the ingredients were harmless.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "or of improving its appearance."

suggested that the Amendment should be amended by the addition of the words, "unless such matter is used to conceal an inferior quality of the article."

moved, as an Amendment, to add at end of clause—

"And he it further provided that in the case where a person may be fined for the sale of an article of food or drug to the prejudice of a purchaser as a foresaid, without knowing them to he of a different nature, substance, or quality from that demanded, then in that case he may recover his costs with damages from the dealer from whom he may have received such article of food or drug."

hoped the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion until the Committee came to consider the 24th clause. There was no machinery provided for the recovery of the amount, and therefore the retail dealer had no better case against the wholesale dealer than that which he had under the present law.

suggested that there should be a limit of six months.

said, he had no objection to add words to that effect to his Amendment.

preferred the question should be dealt with under Clause 24. The wholesale dealer would be placed at a disadvantage, unless it was provided that the article was sold in the same condition in which the retail dealer received it from the wholesale dealer.

proposed to amend the clause by making the age of consent 13 years, instead of 14.

impressed upon the Committee the strong feeling which existed on this subject out-of-doors, and supported the original proposal.

supported the Amendment.

opposed it.