In rising to ask the House to support me in opposing the third reading of this Bill, I am aware that I am taking a course which is not a very common one, but at the same time it is a course not without precedent when the House has been satisfied that there was sufficient reason for it. As a general rule the House is anxious, no doubt, to support the decision of its Committees, as it very probably defers to the opinions of the Members who have sat upon those Committees, and who have thereby acquired abundant knowledge of the circumstances of the case; but I wish to submit that in this case, as far as the opinions of the Members of the House are concerned, the question is at present entirely undecided, and that it is for the House itself to decide, for it is no secret that the four Members of that Committee were equally divided in opinion as to the merits of the Bill, and the decision that was come to was arrived at solely by an alien vote. I have no great knowledge of the procedure in the Private Business that comes before the House, but I have learned that in 1868, by an Order of the House, certain officers of the House called Referees were incorporated with the Private Bill Committees—and although I have put the question to many old Members of the House, I have been unable to find one who was aware that those officers had both the right to consult with the Committee and to vote. However, I suppose it is in order that they should do so, seeing that the House ordered it; but I do not think it is a very wise argument that anyone not a Member of this House, and not having the same responsibility, should have a vote in the Committees of this House. I have no wish to cast the smallest slight on Sir John Duckworth, who was the Referee in question. I know nothing of him, and I am willing to believe any good of him. I only object to a system by which anyone not responsible to the House, and who cannot speak from these benches as to the reasons which induced him to come to a vote, should have a vote at all. That, however, raises a wider question than we can discuss today, and I shall now simply give the history of the present Bill. Some years ago, the city of Glasgow, desiring to have a fine pleasure park for its people, bought an estate a mile or two out of the city, and had it laid out as a park under the supervision of Sir Joseph Paxton. It was a place that was highly interesting in its historical associations, being the scene of the battle of Langside—Queen Mary's last fight—and the spot being rendered as beautiful as art and nature could make it, became consequently a great attraction to the citizens of Glasgow. But as far as Glasgow was concerned, this was rather prospective, as the place was somewhat distant from the city. Nevertheless, certain inhabitants of Glasgow began to build houses in the neighbourhood. When the Park was created, the place now called Cross-hill was merely green fields, and it has since come into existence solely through the creation of the Park. After a considerable number of houses had been built, the inhabitants had the place constituted into a police burgh. Several attempts have been made by Glasgow, very naturally, to extend its boundaries so as to include the Park and the small burgh of Crosshill. It was, I say, natural that Glasgow should wish to do this, seeing that the Crosshill people enjoyed all the benefits of the Park, while escaping all the taxation by which the Park was created and kept up. The fact is that Crosshill, in one sense, rests entirely upon Glasgow. It was Glasgow money and Glasgow people who built the houses at Crosshill; the inhabitants of Crosshill spend their days in Glasgow and earn their living there; and their sole reason for going out of Glasgow is simply to escape taxation, because the rates in Glasgow were necessarily high, Glasgow doing on a magnificent scale everything which causes rates to be high, while the rates of Crosshill are low, because she does nothing for herself, but hangs upon the city of Glasgow for everything. Crosshill has no police of her own, she has no fire brigade of her own, she has no hospitals of her own, she has no public buildings, no prisons, no parks of her own, while the streets are remarkable for bad paving and questionable drains. If a riot should break out at Crosshill, the Glasgow police must go there to quell it; if a fire breaks out at Crosshill, the Glasgow fire brigade must be sent there to put it out; if an epidemic fever breaks out, the Glasgow hospitals are had recourse to, and it is well known that within a few months an epidemic fever did break out, which was entirely caused by deficient drains, and on that occasion the Crosshill people did have recourse to the Glasgow hospitals. Crosshill has Glasgow water and Glasgow gas, and her very sewage makes its escape through Glasgow drains. It might be said that Glasgow might cut her off from all these things and thus compel her to come in; but she knows that Glasgow is too magnanimous to do that, and Crosshill prefers to ride rate-free, trusting to the hospitality and charity of Glasgow to protect her. But, Sir, reasonable as it would be to include Crosshill in Glasgow, that is not the question before the House just now. That question was shelved and decided by the Bill which Glasgow introduced having been rejected. The question we have now to consider is the extension that Crosshill herself proposes—namely, whether Crosshill is to make further encroachments on Glasgow, and to be allowed to take in a piece of ground called No-Man's-Land, which is about three times the area of Crosshill, which contains double her population, which does not belong to the same county as Crosshill, and which lies between her and Glasgow, so that if it were given to her it would cut Glasgow more than ever off from her own Park. When Glasgow brought in her Bill in 1872—for she has brought in several Bills to annex Crosshill—that one was defeated principally on political grounds, there being an idea that two Liberal seats might be lost if the Bill were carried. But on the present occasion, Glasgow having brought in a Bill simply to include her own Park, and Crosshill, and No-Man's-Land, and very little more, as a retaliatory measure Crosshill has brought in a Bill to incorporate No-Man's-Land. This Bill is called a defensive measure, but it is defence on the principle of "carrying the war into Africa," and it is this measure which the House has to consider to-day. Fully one-third of the ground is the actual property of Glasgow, and of one of the charities managed by the Corporation of Glasgow, the remainder of the ground belonging entirely to proprietors who wish to be united to Glasgow and not to Crosshill. The inhabitants are very much divided in their opinions. It is natural that many of them would wish to be joined to Crosshill because the Crosshill rates are low; but I have had some pressing letters myself from inhabitants of No-Man's-Land desiring very strongly to be annexed to Glasgow. I am quite satisfied that if the House makes the mistake of annexing it to Cross-hill the inhabitants of No-Man's-Land will have every reason to regret it when they find that they are saddled with the expense of this contest and are annexed to Crosshill, which can do nothing for them, except require them to pay higher rates than they would have to pay in Glasgow, which can do everything for them. These are the principal points which I have to touch upon in reference to this Bill. The only other point is the political aspect of the case, because that political aspect has been made a great deal of during the last few days. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) and the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew-shire (Colonel Mure) seem to have some little fear as to the security of their seats. Now, I am very willing to admit that the loss of those hon. Members would be a great loss to the House and to the country. I should regret it very much myself from a Party point of view, and a great deal more from a personal point of view, because both of them are very good Friends of mine; but I am anxious to re-assure my hon. Friends that the question has really no political signification at all. Even if the Glasgow Extension Bill had been carried, it would have taken in a little piece of Renfrewshire, but it would not have affected the Parliamentary boundary of Glasgow. It would require a public Act to do that; and I think that under present circumstances, when there are much larger issues pending—such as household suffrage in counties and the redistribution of seats—there is not much fear that either the Government or a private Member would attempt to bring in a Bill to touch the question of Parliamentary boundary at all. The present Bill has no political bearing whatever, and it cannot be regarded as an attempt upon the part of Glasgow to take any part of Renfrewshire. That is a question that may be considered shelved and done for. On the other hand, it is an attempt on the part of Crosshill, a burgh of Renfrewshire, to go out of their own county and take a piece of Lanark-shire. One of the unfortunate effects of passing the Bill would be that all the people of No-Man's-Land when they got into trouble with the police would find themselves lugged off to Paisley, seven miles distant, instead of remaining in their own county as at present. I shall not detain the House longer, but will conclude by merely expressing a hope that the House will not affirm the principle which appears to be affirmed by the decision of the referee—namely, that a large city like Glasgow must not be allowed to extend her municipal boundary, but shall be penned in by all kinds of small petty burghs growing up round her, and that these petty burghs shall not be hampered but should be allowed to extend themselves in any way they please. That is a principle which it would be most damaging and dangerous to adopt in regard to large cities, and it is not one on which we have hitherto acted or have been accustomed to act. In the case of Rochdale quite lately it was allowed to extend its boundary even against the will of some of the inhabitants outside. Indeed, it would be very poor encouragement to cities like Glasgow to purchase estates and create fine parks for the enjoyment and health of their citizens, which they must necessarily do outside their own boundary, if they found that they were to be cut off by some trumpery place like Crosshill from the full enjoyment and possession of their own Park. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months.

I believe it is a somewhat unusual course to move the rejection of a Bill like this on the third reading; but there are good grounds for doing so in this instance. That course has been taken by my hon. Colleague, who has gone minutely into all the arguments against the passing of this Bill, and I rise simply for the purpose of supporting his Motion. My hon. Colleague has called attention to the local position of matters, the small-ness of the population of Crosshill, and the comparatively large population to, be added to it, the larger area sought to be acquired, the different jurisdictions, and the fact that the district proposed to be taken belongs to another county. My hon. Colleague having gone completely into all the local points, I shall pass over much that I intended to say; it is necessary, however, to remark that the effect of passing this Bill would be to commit the House to the establishment of a precedent carrying out the principle that the overflow of a city population settling on the borders of the city should be constituted into small burghal communities, under the General Police Act rather than be added to the city. Hitherto a very different principle has been followed—for instance, in the case of Glasgow itself there have been added the burghs of Calton, Anderston, Gorbals, and Bridge-ton, and as recently as 1872 the city was enlarged by the incorporation of Spring burn and two other districts with a population of 12,000. The establishment of a new precedent would, it seems to me, be a very serious matter, and I believe that the House will be slow to adopt such a proposal after it has fully investigated and carefully considered the merits and demerits of the course it is now asked to commit itself to. In the interests of good local government I think the question should be settled; and I would ask the House if it is desirable that the great and important works of sanitary improvement, which are so strongly advocated in this case, should be left to be carried out by small burghs. I believe it is within the experience of all of us that small burghs do not carry out these great sanitary measures in a proper and efficient manner. There are Members of this House who have given much time to the study of questions of local government, Members who, as responsible Ministers, have had experience on the subject, and whose opinions are entitled to the greatest weight in the House. I would appeal to them for their opinion as to the comparative advantage of cities being extended so as to embrace their over-growing population, or of such population being grouped into small burghs completely encircling, it may be, the parent city. I would invite them to tell us what they think of this Bill, and whether they do not think it should be rejected, thereby enabling the House to avoid the adoption of a precedent which might prove embarrassing in future legislation. I would ask those Members who have taken great interest in the construction of sanitary measures whether they consider small burghs as likely as large ones to organize sanitary arrangements for the benefit of the population? Hon. Members will recollect that during the discussion of the Artizans Dwellings Bill it was often suggested that small places should be included, but that was successfully resisted, and only because of the belief the House had that the Governing Bodies of small places would not be strong enough or independent enough to set in motion the provisions of the Act. For the same reason, it was suggested in the discussion on the same Bill that the Bodies charged with the carrying out of the provisions thereof should be made stronger. The rejection of this Bill would not commit the House to any precedent, but will only leave matters as they have hitherto been. I trust that the House will not create a bad precedent by sanctioning the principle that will be involved in the passing of this measure—namely, that the overflowing population of a city had better be grouped in small burghs hedging in the city than that additions should be from time to time made to the parent city to embrace such population. I know that opinions do exist in favour of the establishment of small burghs and unfavourable to the extension of large ones; that, however, is not a prevalent opinion, and it is not the opinion of those who are best able to judge of what is for the interest of good government. Past experience of measures for the extension of cities exhibit some confusion of ideas on the subject. Sometimes the Bills have been passed, and sometimes they have been rejected. Considerable uncertainty prevails as to what would be the result of an application to Parliament for the purpose, and the consequence is that considerable expense has been incurred. The Government ought to be pressed to take up the matter of city extension, and to introduce a general measure, laying down principles which ought to be followed in such cases. The rejection of this Bill would not prejudice the prospects of such a measure, and for the reasons I have stated I cordially second the Motion of my hon. Colleague.

, as Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill had been referred, wished to say a few words. The Committee sat for five weeks and examined 74 witnesses, and came to a very deliberate opinion. As the hon. Member for Glasgow had referred to it he might mention that the Committee consisted beside himself of three Members, one of whom—the hon. Member for Westmoreland—had had considerable experience—with Sir John Duckworth, the Referee. The Committee was equally divided in opinion. Sir John Duckworth did not give his reasons until the room was cleared in order that the Committee might consider the Report, and then he gave it as his reason that Glasgow had made out no case whatever. The question had been going on ever since 1868. Glasgow stood on seven square miles of ground, of which one-fifth was not built on. It had 530,000 inhabitants, and the Corporation was very anxious to annex 14 other square miles containing a population of 100,000. By an Act passed in 1862, these districts enjoyed complete self-government in every respect. At present they were small burghs, but they were growing rapidly into large ones. There were six of those burghs around Glasgow. Of course, the great object of those persons who lived round Glasgow was not to be included in the Glasgow rates. They wished that the money raised in their own localities should be spent by themselves for their own purposes. They had that great love of self-government which those of the Saxon race generally possessed. Now, the sanitary condition of Glasgow was the worst of any town in Scotland, Greenock excepted, and its death-rate had certainly not decreased. On the other hand, the death-rate was very light in the districts round Glasgow, their sanitary arrangements were very good and quite sufficient for the district. Now, if the inhabitants had any wish to join Glasgow they could do so by the general law of Scotland; but what Glasgow was seeking to do was to force them into her enormous municipality against their will. This was a principle which Parliament had repeatedly refused to sanction. It was not a new case which Parliament was called upon to consider. The decision of the present Committee was only confirmation of repeated decisions of Parliament. On the present occasion Glasgow had singled out a small place in the hope that, if successful, a precedent would be formed for dealing with the others. But the small section now attacked was defending itself in a very game way—and how it got the money to do so he could not conceive; but it was supported by the two counties of Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire. The whole of the Commissioners of Supply came forward and in the strongest possible manner objected to the place being taken from the county in which it was. The only reason he could discover for Glasgow wishing to catch hold of these burghs, and that of Crosshill and No-Man's-Land in particular, was that they would immediately lexy a tax of £9,000 or £10,000 a-year—just the sum the Corporation spent yearly in Parliamentary contests. He wished to mention that in 1870 the House of Commons rejected, on the second reading, a Bill to annex the same district. In 1871 the Crosshill burgh was formed. The Corporation of Glasgow opposed the formation of the burgh, and they appealed to the Home Secretary, now Lord Aberdare. The Home Secretary rejected the appeal. In 1872 a Bill was brought in by the Corporation of Glasgow to annex a portion of the district, including Crosshill; but to avoid its being thrown out they withdrew a considerable part of it, and the Select Committee rejected all the Bill in the case of those inhabitants who objected to join Glasgow. In 1874 the Corporation promoted a Bill which, after very careful consideration, was thrown out. That Bill and the last Bill did not take in the whole sweep of 14 square miles—they wished now to get the principle sanctioned that one portion of it could be forced to join Glasgow against its will. He hoped however, the House would not allow Glasgow to make a precedent of the case, the only case he remembered of a Bill being thrown out in this way on the third reading was the Birmingham Drainage Bill; but this would establish a precedent most dangerous in relation to other places and other populations. One of the arguments used was that Crosshill was in two counties. Both Crosshill and Glasgow were alike as to that matter. Crosshill was in Renfrewshire, and the land it wished to annex was in Lanarkshire. Glasgow was in Lanarkshire, and it wanted to annex a piece of land in Renfrewshire. Cross-hill was on one side of a hill and No-Man's-Land was on the other. No-Man's-Land was not part of Glasgow, and the county line ran not through a lot of streets, but through houses. No-Man's-Land was separated from Glasgow by a mile and a-half of railway stations and buildings, and never could become a part of Glasgow, for the great block of buildings and railway stations would always he between it and the city. He again hoped that the House would pass the Bill.

Having had the honour of being a Member of the Committee which considered this Bill, I wish to explain the reasons which induced me to vote against it in Committee, and which will compel me to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow. We have heard a great deal of the desire of Glasgow to annex certain outlying districts, but very little has been said about the Bill before us, which has for its object the annexation not to Glasgow but to the small burgh of Crosshill, a district in Renfrewshire covering 80 acres, and containing 3,500 inhabitants; of another district of 216 acres in Lanarkshire, containing 6,000 inhabitants, which lies between Crosshill and Glasgow. Looking at the matter as it stands, it seems to me that if this district is to be annexed to either Glasgow or Crosshill, it should naturally gravitate to the larger area, and not to the smaller one. But there is this objection, that the inhabitants wish for annexation, not to Glasgow but to Crosshill. There are four reasons given for this. The first, which is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight), though it was not brought forward in evidence by the people of the district themselves, is, that the death-rate in Glasgow is so high that it would be very cruel to throw any new district within that death-rate. But with all deference for the decrees of the House of Commons, I am certain that the drawing of an imaginary line will not prevent epidemic disease from spreading beyond it; in fact, I believe the contrary result will follow, because while you may—and if you pass this Bill you certainly will—stop the sanitary staff of Glasgow from going beyond their own boundary, you cannot stop the steps of a fever, and thus you will leave this district exposed to the dangers inseparable from the vicinity of a great city, without the protection afforded by the sanitary staff of that city. The second reason is, that this district is separated from Glasgow by railway stations and public works; but it surely would not be argued that because Euston and King's Cross and St. Pan-eras stations cut off a certain portion of London from the rest, that therefore the part cut off should be formed into a separate city. The third reason why this district does not wish for annexation to Glasgow is, that if thrown into Glasgow as an outlying portion of the city, they believe they would not be properly cared for by the municipality, as the Town Council beautifies the centre of the city and neglects the outlying districts; not one tittle of evidence however was brought forward to show that the city has neglected its duties in any part of its jurisdiction. The fourth and real reason why these persons, inhabiting No Man's Land, desire annexation to Cross-hill and not to Glasgow is, that they say the rates of Crosshill are 10d. in the pound, while those of Glasgow are 2s. 7½d.; that is the real reason for this Bill. When I inquire into the reason of this great difference I find that the burgh of Crosshill is a collection of villas, principally inhabited by well-to-do and order-abiding people. What is the consequence? Why, that the police, although sufficient for Crosshill, consists of three constables. There is not even a lock-up nearer than a mile and a-half, at Pollokshaws. The sanitary arrangements are so bad, that when lately there was an epidemic of typhoid fever, there being no hospital in Crosshill, the patients had to be sent to Glasgow. The fire appliances are good enough, I suppose, if the people are satisfied with them; but they are not sufficient to put out a great fire, and we heard great complaints of the danger which the people are exposed to from the insufficient precautions against fire. If this Bill is passed what will happen? A district which fairly belongs to Glasgow—for this is no attempt on the part of Glasgow to invade Crosshill, it is an attempt on the part of Crosshill to invade Glasgow—will be added to this collection of villas, a district wanting more police, certainly a lock-up, hospitals, and everything else which is required for an urban population like this in No Man's Land, and in a few years the rates of the newly created or increased burgh will be equal to, if not heavier, than those of Glasgow. Even supposing they did remain less, which I cannot believe, then I say that this Bill is simply an attempt on the part of a portion of the inhabitants of Glasgow to shake off the the burdens which they ought in justice to the rest of the city to share. I remember that within the last few years this House has passed measures of the greatest justice, which have forced the richer portions of cities to bear their fair proportion of the burdens of the poorer, and I hope the House will not say that the richer inhabitants of Glasgow are to be allowed to share the benefits of the city, and then to shake off its burdens. We have been told that it is an almost unprecedented thing to move the rejection of a Bill which has been passed by a Committee, but it is also an unprecedented thing for a small burgh to try and extend itself into another county at the expense of a great neighbouring city. If the Corporation of Glasgow had neglected their duties, or mismanaged their finances, I would say in a moment—"Set up another authority;" but what does the evidence prove? Why, that in the management of their municipal affairs they have done great things, and they mean to do more, if they are allowed to be free. Their police arrangements are quite satisfactory. They have founded parks and picture galleries for the benefit and instruction of the people, and they have done even more to earn the gratitude of the community, for they have cleared away the rookeries which formerly disgraced the centre of the town, and have built better and more healthy buildings for the working classes. If this Bill is carried, it will be a precedent for surrounding a great city with a cordon of petty burghs, which will conflict and compete with it in every possible manner, thwart its attempts at reform, and stifle its development in every direction. You will have a repetition in Glasgow of what exists in London—namely, the centre of the city will be governed by one authority, and the out-lying portions by other and often conflicting bodies. These are the reasons which induce me to vote against the passing of the Bill in Committee. First, because it is a selfish attempt of a portion of the city to escape from the burdens which they ought to bear; and, secondly, because I think the Corporation of Glasgow by their conduct in past times have justified the appeal they now make to this House not to be saddled by conflicting and competing authorities at their very gates.

said, that when the time came that Crosshill wanted more police, a hospital, and so forth, Crosshill would be perfectly ready to pay for them: but the district would rather not be included in Glasgow, where the rates were very high, and where the new ratepayers would have little or no voice in the way in which the money was disposed of. The hon. Member had said that they would be establishing a dangerous precedent if they decided that Crosshill was not to be absorbed by Glasgow. It seemed to him (Mr. Lowther) that it would be still more dangerous to allow a great town like Glasgow to absorb all the outlying districts—that merely because it was a large and powerful Corporation it should be allowed to take whatever it pleased. The hon. Member for Glasgow said that the county of Renfrew took no part with regard to the Glasgow Bill. [Mr. ANDERSON: I did not say so.] He so understood. However, the fact was that part of the county of Renfrew was very willing and anxious to be annexed to Crosshill, but particularly objected to be annexed to Glasgow. Of course when a Private Bill was referred to a Committee, the decision must please one party and displease the other; but would the House allow the decision of the Committee to be set on one side—a Committee which sat from the 8th of May to the 8th of June, which never stopped or interfered with any witness, or checked any of the witnesses on both sides—in order to gratify this great and powerful town. The Members of the Committee did not consult each other, and only within the last day or two he knew the decision to which they were likely to come—that the majority had decided that Glasgow had not proved its case. He hoped the House would come to a unanimous decision not to override the decision of the Committee.

said, he should decline to enter into the general question as to the merit of the Bill—that question had been fairly fought in the Committee, and other Gentlemen had given the House reason for the decision they had come to. What he wished to point out was this—that all the principal arguments they had heard in this debate ought to have been raised on the second reading. Why were they not raised then? It had been said that the decision of the Committee was not unanimous; but the inquiry was of the nature of an arbitration, and was there ever an arbitration in which provision was not made for difference of opinion? In this case the casting vote of the Referee had been referred to. He had sat in Parliament for years with Sir John Duckworth, and he knew no man whose opinion was entitled to more weight. He could safely trust the case there. But there was another tribunal to which to appeal. He had heard some Gentlemen propose to enter into the question whether small areas for boroughs were good from a sanitary point of view. Let those gentlemen take their evidence before the House of Lords, instead of adopting the unusual course of attempting to throw out a Bill by a canvass in the Lobby. Upon every principle of fairness, the City of Glasgow was bound by the decision of the tribunal to which it had appealed. As to the question of the expediency of establishing these small boroughs, he would remind the House that Glasgow had already brought in two Bills, the former of which was defeated, and the other, which included a large proportion of the areas named in the present Bill was also rejected, the House deciding that the question was one which ought to be raised in a general Act, and not by a private Bill. With regard to the history of the burgh of Crosshill it was very short. If it had been all in one county, the House would have heard nothing about it, but in consequence of the county boundary running straight through it, and inconvenience resulting in respect to the Sheriff Court, Crosshill appealed to the Lord Advocate of the day, and a Bill was introduced to remedy the inconvenience. That was opposed by Glasgow, and thrown out; but subsequently Crosshill brought in its Bill, and Glasgow its Bill, and the two were referred to the same Committee, and by the decision of that Committee they ought to abide. He thought it was monstrous, after what had taken place, that the city should now come forward and challenge the decision of the Committee to which the decision of the question had been referred. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen who had ever taken part in our Private Bill legislation to take a stand in support of the tribunal of Select Committees, and he appealed to the House whether it was not impugning that tribunal by calling in question the Bill itself.

would ask the House one question—was the general body of the House better informed about No Man's Land, Crosshill, and Glasgow than they were when they came into the House? Looking at the number of days the subject occupied the Committee, would not the House agree with him that it would be absolutely absurd to enter into a detailed discussion? That being so, would it not be monstrous and absurd for the House to upset the decision of the Committee on the ex parte statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow? The real knowledge on this question rested with the Committee, and with the Referee. They had conducted a judicial inquiry, and had come to a judicial conclusion; was it right that that decision should be set aside in the House by a number of Members who had been pressed into the service by a system of lobbying?

, who had been a Member of the Committee, said, the question was one of no slight importance—namely, whether our great cities should be governed from one central authority, or hemmed in by small municipalities interfering with their free and deliberate action. A Royal Commission was issued in 1835 on the subject of these burghs; and their Report strongly recommended a simplification of the system, so as to avoid conflict of jurisdiction, multiplication of office-bearers, and petty local jealousies. The effect of the evidence before the Committee upon his mind was that Glasgow was in much the better position to govern the disputed district of No-Man's-Land than Crosshill could possibly be. Crosshill was being rapidly built over, and would shortly become a most important part of the City of Glasgow, and although the rates of Crosshill were now somewhat lower, yet if the land was annexed to Crosshill and the burgh well-governed, the rates would soon be as high as they were in Glasgow. Many of the evils from which Glasgow had suffered had arisen from the fact that up to 1846 it consisted of a community of small burghs. The Act of 1846 brought them all into one body, and Glasgow had since greatly improved. The suburbs in question belonged to Glasgow. At the time when the present boundaries of the city were formed, the population was only 200,000—now the number was 600,000. Was it reasonable to suppose that the boundaries which would suit 200,000 would suit 600,000? On those grounds he voted for the Glasgow Bill and against the Crosshill Bill in the Committee, and he trusted that the House, as umpire of all such Committees would confirm the principle he had referred to.

said, considering the importance that was claimed for the reasons urged against the Bill, it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) did not bring them before the House earlier. If the question had been discussed on the second reading, the House could then have decided between the Glasgow and Crosshill Bills, and would have been spared a discussion which seemed to him a little out of date. He regretted that the hon. Member for Glasgow, in his natural anxiety to press his case on the House, should have sought to impugn the authority of the Committee by using expressions which might seem to be disrespectful to a most accomplished Gentleman, who was greatly respected by all parties and whose services to that House in his capacity of Referee could not possibly be overrated.

I entirely disclaimed, at the time I spoke, any slight whatever on Sir John Duckworth.

said, the hon. Member's remark might be thought disrespectful by others. With all respect to the Members of the Committee, the opinion of Sir John Duckworth would weigh very much more with him (Mr. Raikes) than that of any other person who had considered the question. They had been told that the Bill raised the question of municipal government in its larger sense, and that it was a conflict between a large burgh being allowed to extend itself and small burghs being allowed to be formed and to extend themselves. That question was decided by the Act of 1872, which provided for the formation of small burghs, and which also contemplated the fact that these places might exist in two conterminous counties. Where the place was situated in one county, the Sheriff had power to fix the boundaries, and this had been done in the case of Crosshill. Now Crosshill applied to have its boundaries so extended as to include a part of land which might have been included in the first instance. He thought the question to-day had been argued too much on the point whether Crosshill should be allowed to exist or not. Even if they threw out this Bill, Crosshill would continue to have a separate existence, and so would many other burghs on the outskirts of Glasgow. If Glasgow objected to the existence of these burghs, he submitted it should raise the question on some broad general principle, and not on a part of the question only. It was to be remembered that Glasgow in 1870 came to the House of Commons with an extension Bill, which was rejected on the second reading; and again in 1872 they came with a plan for the absorption of several of these small burghs, but all were struck out except Spring burn, which was willing to be incorporated. It was also to be remembered that the Committee threw out the Glasgow Bill this year, as Committees had done twice before, and it would have been most inconsistent and illogical of them, after doing that, not to have passed the Crosshill Bill, and if they had refrained from passing it, it would have been open to the House to remit it back to them for their re-consideration. He hoped the House would discriminate between the two questions, and not allow themselves to be led away from the real issue by the turn the debate had taken. He would consider it his duty to vote for the third reading.

said, the question before the House was simple and intelligible to all minds—it was whether they should support the decision of this Committee, or should reverse it. He knew nothing, and like most other Members, he cared nothing, as to the merits of the case as between Crosshill and Glasgow; but there used to be a system of canvassing and lobbying carried on with respect to Private Bills. The House was determined if possible to stop it, and with that view they diminished the numbers of their Committees, and increased their responsibilities, and they also appointed a Referee in order that the Committees might have the guidance and assistance of a nominal Chairman who was well versed in Parliamentary business, and who would be a sort of guarantee to the House that the decisions of these Committees had been impartial and not contrary to Parliamentary precedent. Now this Committee had sat for five weeks and had examined a great many witnesses; a large expenditure had been incurred, and the Committee had come to a decision in regard to the question on which the House at large had no opinion and no knowledge. Should they set a-side that Committee and allow a judicial decision to be overturned and thwarted by private solicitation? He regretted that the whole Morning Sitting was being taken up with the re-hearing and re-judging of a question which had already been heard and decided by a tribunal capable of dealing with it, and he hoped the House would now decide the simple question whether or not they had confidence in their Committee.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he would state to the House why the survey, on the large scale, of the parish of Langerniew, and other parishes in the county of Denbigh, which was long since completed, has not yet been published; and whether he can state when such survey will be published?

Sir, the progress of the Survey of the United Kingdom must be carried on as a whole, and not with regard to the interests of any particular district; but I am happy to say that the survey of the county of Denbigh, in which the hon. Member is interested, is advancing well towards completion. It is an error to say that of the parish of Langerniew has been long since completed. It was not surveyed till last year, and the field work was not completed till late in the autumn, but it will now go on as rapidly as possible. The plans will be published as soon as practicable after they have been received from the local officer and examined.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it be the fact that no room has been reserved or can be afforded for the Court of Appeal in the Courts of Justice now in course of erection; if so, whether the omission from the design was accidental; whether there has been any proposal by private persons to erect a Court of Appeal and to let or lend it to the Nation; and, if so, whether the Government have come to any decision on that proposal.

The Courts of Justice now in course of erection do contain a Court for the Lord Chancellor and one for the Lords Justices; but there is no special provision for a Court of Appeal; for the simple reason that the designs for that building were approved and the contract signed before the passing of the Judicature Act of 1873. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have been informed that the Society of Lincoln's Inn were willing to construct a Court of Appeal and lease or lend it to the Government; but as that proposal has never been made to me in an official way Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to form a decision upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in reference to the intimation he made yesterday that the penalties imposed under the Act 21 Geo. 3, should not be "unduly pressed," he has any objection to state the Statute under which he thinks the Crown can remit these penalties; and if, upon further inquiry, he should find that such a power does not exist, whether he will bring in a Bill this Session to indemnify all companies and persons against whom actions have been brought?

, in reply, said he stated on the 31st of May that, considering all the circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government did not think the Brighton Aquarium case was one in which the penalties imposed under the Act 21 Geo. III. should be "unduly pressed," and he stated the same thing the other day. An Act of Parliament had been placed before him, 22 Vict., c. 32, which enabled the Crown to remit penalties. In order to remove any doubts whatever as to the construction of that statute it might be necessary to introduce a Bill this Session to give that Act a wider application, not only in the Brighton Aquarium case, but in all cases of a similar kind.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a scheme has been submitted to the Educational Department for the transfer of the National Schools at Middleton, West Hartlepool, to the Stranton School Board, under the twenty-third section of the Education Act of 1870; whether in the said scheme provision is made that the schools shall be let on lease for twenty-one years on consideration of 2s. 6d. per annum; that the trustees shall have the exclusive and unrestricted use of the schools, fittings, and furniture, both in the boys and girls department from 5 o'clock p. m. on any day until 8 o'clock a.m. on all days, and the other parts of Sundays, Saturdays, Christmas Days, Good Fridays, Ascension Days, and of parts of the year when the scholars have holiday, and of one other day in each year, of which day the Vicar shall give one week's notice to the clerk of the Board; whether also the following clauses are a portion of the said scheme:—

"The master, trustees, and pupil teachers to he employed in the demised premises shall sign a declaration before appointment that they are respectively members of the Church of England as by Law established, and no person shall he so appointed by the Board unless he or she shall subscribe to such declaration, and such declaration shall he produced by the Board to the Vicar of the Ecclesiastical District in which the Board is situated, when required by him."

"The Bible (authorized version) shall be read and intelligently explained to the scholars by the master and mistress for half an hour on each morning during which the school is open, during the term, but without secular bias or the use of any catechism or formulary, and the vicar for the time being of the said ecclesiastical district may once or oftener in each week be present at such examination and instruction, but he shall not interfere therein."

"Hymns from the collection at present in use in the school shall always during the term be sung every morning and afternoon, and such vicar may be present as aforesaid during such singing of hymns; "

and, whether these portions of the scheme are satisfactory to the Department, and considered by them to be in accordance with the Education Act of 1870?

Sir, the scheme alluded to by the hon. Gentleman for the transfer of Middleton School to the Stranton School Board has reached the Education Department, and I find an answer was sent last week to the application. The reply, being such as is always sent with our approval in such cases, followed as a matter of course, and was, therefore, not submitted to me. All arrangements as to transfers are governed by the printed instructions relating thereto issued by the Department, which are generally sent for by a school board before entering into a transfer. In this case we were not asked for our instructions, and hence, doubtless, the misunderstanding of the powers of a school board has arisen. The rule as to the reservation to themselves by managers and trustees of the use of a transferred school for certain times is as follows:—

"The arrangement may provide for the trustees or managers reserving to themselves the use of the school premises during Sunday and during other times, provided a sufficient use is transferred to the board to enable the board to carry on upon the premises a public elementary school."

The scheme proposed to us by the Stranton School Board complies with the provisions of this rule, and, so far, is approved by the Department. We have, however, a further rule respecting transfers, with which, to prevent further mistakes, I believe I had better trouble the House—

"The arrangement for transfer must not prescribe the kind of instruction (whether religious or secular) to be given in the school. It must not contain anything as to the examination or inspection of the school, the appointment of managers or teachers, the admission of children, or the general management of the school. The school, so far as transferred to the board, must be managed in every respect as the board for the time being see fit, subject only to Sections 7 and 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."

These two rules have always been acted upon since the passing of the Act, and represent, I believe faithfully, its intention. Under this latter rule we have objected, as a matter of course, to all the three clauses to which, in the second part of his Question, the hon. Gentleman has called my attention. I feel sure that the Stranton School Board could have no intention to contravene the provisions of the Act; but, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, I feel bound to say that we consider these portions of the scheme of transfer contrary to the law, and, therefore, I need hardly add they are not satisfactory to the Department.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, in the case of a dangerous lunatic committed to a lunatic asylum by the warrant of two magistrates, and whose parents and relatives are in good circumstances, there are any means of compelling them to contribute towards the support of the lunatic while in the asylum; and, if not, whether he would consent to introduce a Clause, which would meet this case, into the Bill before the House?

There is no power under the existing laws in Ireland, when a dangerous lunatic has been committed to a lunatic asylum by the warrant of two magistrates, to compel his parents or relatives, should they be in good circumstances, to contribute to his support while he is under detention. Such an Amendment as that pointed at by the Question of my hon. Friend is now under the consideration of the Government, and we hope to be able, to some extent at least, to give effect to his suggestion.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering the evils arising from the present uncertainty as to the ultimate and permanent arrangement of the circuits, there is any and if so what reason why any proposed alteration should not he at once effected or definitely abandoned?

I quite accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member that it is desirable to put an end to the uncertainty which at present exists as to the ultimate and permanent arrangement of the Circuits; but it is necessary that the Bill for the Amendment of the Judicature Act, 1873, or some equivalent Bill, should pass into a law before that desirable object can be satisfactorily obtained.

, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for War, If he has any objection to say whether the letter from the Reverend Hugh Behan to Sir John Dillon to which he referred, in answer to a previous Question, as containing a demand that Sir John Dillon would send the Meath Militia regiment to Mass on the 6th and 27th of May, is in existence; and, if not, when and under what circumstances it ceased to exist; whether there was not a subsequent letter from the Reverend Hugh Behan to Sir John Dillon, containing a request that he would allow the men to attend Mass on the 27th of May, and whether he has any objection to lay copies of this letter, and of the reply to it, upon the Table of the House; and, whether it is a fact that the Tipperary and Westmeath Regiments of Militia are allowed by their commanding officers to attend Mass on holidays; and whether he will direct that some facilities should be given in future by the commanding officer of the Meath Militia to enable his men to do the same; expressed a wish to postpone it to a future day, when he proposed to put another Question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

said, that as the first Question which the hon. Member had on the Paper involved an imputation upon him he would rather reply to it at once. The Question represented him as having on a former occasion quoted a letter from the Rev. Hugh Behan which in some way was supposed to have ceased to exist. This seemed to involve an imputation upon him (Mr. G. Hardy) of having dealt unfairly with that letter. The truth was he held that letter in his hand at that moment. He distinctly stated on the former occasion that it contained not a demand but a request from the clergyman that Sir John Dillon would allow the men to attend Mass. With respect to the other Question, he might remark that he had another letter from Mr. Behan, which was not to the effect stated by the hon. Member, but contained a request, which was complied with, that the men might be allowed to attend Mass at a different hour than usual on three separate days. Great and needless labour would be imposed on the War Office if that Department were to ascertain when Militia officers allowed or did not allow their men to attend particular religious services.

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman declined to take any further steps in the matter?

replied, that every Commanding Officer of Militia had full power to allow the men under his command to attend the religious services of the denomination to which they belonged. The facilities given were amply sufficient for the purpose, and it was not his intention to give further facilities. Any abuse of that power would be dealt with at the War Office; but if there were no abuse he certainly should not interfere in the matter.

distinctly disclaimed the idea that he wished to make any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, he must say that the right hon. Gentleman appeared by his answer to be—

interposed and said the hon. Member could only make a personal explanation respecting himself.

said, that no one disputed the desirableness of substituting for our present system of transferring titles to land a simpler, cheaper, and more expeditious system, and in his opinion the present measure offered as simple and effectual a mode as was consistent with our existing law. During the last 50 years Lord Eldon, Lord Campbell, Lord Westbury, and other eminent lawyers, had endeavoured to provide remedies for the defects in the law on this subject, and it was remarkable that one and all of them pointed to a General Registry as the sole solution of the difficulty. The Report of the Commission of 1857 had for its substantive recommendation that a general registry of titles to land should be established, and that owners of land should be allowed to register their titles either as indefeasible titles or as ordinary titles, subject to adverse claims. In 1859 the present Lord Chancellor, then Solicitor General, brought into the House of Commons a Bill founded on that Report. That Bill passed a second reading; but it proceeded no further in consequence of a dissolution of Parliament, which took place shortly afterwards. In the Session of 1862 a Bill was introduced in this House by Lord Westbury. It was based on the principle of a "registry of title to land;" but it was not, in fact, a measure for the registry of land, but provided a complicated machinery for the registry of deeds relating to land. It enabled the owner of land, after examination of title by official inquiry, to obtain and place on record a declaration of title which thereafter became indefeasible, but it made no provision for placing on the register a title of the ordinary class—that was to say, a title good in itself, but open to adverse claims. The Bill of Lord Westbury passed into law, and a Registry Office with a staff was established in London, for the purpose of carrying it into operation. After a short experience the scheme was found to be a failure. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan), in criticizing the Bill now before the House on the former occasion, tried to fasten upon it a sort of odium, by saying it was merely a reproduction of Lord Westbury's Act. But what was the state of things prior to the passing of that Act? The Royal Commission of 1856, composed of men of high standing, who commanded the confidence of the legal Profession, reported in favour of the establishment of a General Registry, and the principles laid down in that Report were accepted at the time by the House, and also, he believed, by the legal Profession generally, as providing a means of meeting the difficulties of the case. When the failure of Lord Westbury's Act became apparent, a Commission was issued in 1868 to inquire into the operation of the Act. The Report of the Commission, issued in 1869, stated that, in their opinion, the Act had proved a failure; and, after pointing out the causes of its want of success, they proceeded to recommend the principle on which the Bills of 1859 had been framed. That was what the present Bill proposed to do. It proposed to do all that was approved of in the Bill of 1859, while it avoided the defects and inconveniences that the Commissioners pointed out in the measure of Lord Westbury. It provided that any person coming to the Registry could have his name entered as owner of a property; and after that property had been on the register 20 years he would have a good sound and holding title; and this was done by a simple, easy, quick, and inexpensive process. A system of general registry had been adopted not only in the colony of Victoria but in the United States, which had originally adopted the old English system with regard to the transfer of land. The result of the change in America was that the people did not look on land merely as a permanent investment, but as a commodity which could be purchased and sold with facility, and in which they could invest their money in as ready and convenient a manner as in any other commodity. If this Bill were regarded as a measure which would work well—if it were allowed fair scope—he felt assured it would be proved to be one of the best modes of solving the difficulty in regard to the transfer of land.

said, the hon. Member's allusion to America recalled to his own mind a meeting held some years ago of the Law Amendment Society, when the question discussed was, how the Court of Chancery was to be got rid of. Lord Brougham presided on the occasion. The Court of Chancery was then regarded as a sort of when on our jurisprudence. Mr. Field, a Chief Justice of America, happened to be present, and from what he said it appeared that the Americans did not know how the Court of Chancery had been established—his (Mr. Whalley's) conviction was that the Court of Chancery was designed by the Papacy to destroy our Common Law—yet he said that the Common Law, as imported from England into America, would be sufficient to meet every difficulty if the Chancery system were put an end to. The passing of this measure would, he hoped, have the effect of restoring lawyers to that position of respectability to which they could not lay claim at present.

said, that the system of registration provided by Lord Westbury's Act had proved a complete failure, and he thought the best that could be said in favour of the scheme proposed by the present Bill was that it would prove a dead letter. If it worked at all it would work a great deal of mischief. Instead of simplifying titles it would complicate them, and instead of lessening expense it would increase it—especially in small transactions, where people of limited means, the very persons whose benefit ought particularly to be kept in view in a Bill of this kind, were concerned. The Bill proposed to register three kinds of title, an absolute title, a possessory title, and a qualified title. As to the first, when a man had got an absolute title something was gained. But how was that to be obtained? Not without incurring an amount of expense and trouble of which at present no one had an adequate idea. And then it might happen after all that a man obtained a title to something altogether indefinite and uncertain, for whenever a question arose as to the extent or the boundaries of the property his title would be as doubtful as before. In this respect the scheme was much less perfect than Lord Westbury's, which provided for an indefeasible title to land with definite boundaries. The next title that could be obtained was a possessory title. But the Bill was not compulsory, and so long as that was the case no one in his senses would register a title which threw a slur on his right to the possession of his property. He would give such a man the advice which he heard Baron Martin give a witness who was asked to produce his title—namely, to shut his box and sit on it. Then the Bill proposed to give a qualified title. But that was still worse than a possessory title. How, then, could a measure of this description be of any real benefit in simplifying title and reducing the expense of transferring land from man to man? If Her Majesty's Government meant to satisfy the public and to bring forward a scheme which would be a clear simplification of title they would have to introduce a system analogous to that which had been adopted in the United States, in Australia, and other of our Colonies, but which, owing to the more complicated titles of land in this country, it would be much more difficult to devise, and ten times more difficult to carry into execution. There must be a general survey of the whole country on a large scale, and land titles must be simplified by enacting that the legal owner for the purpose of registration should be the sole owner, and that settlements and other incumbrances should affect the equitable, but not the legal right. The remedy of beneficiaries against the legal owner should be the remedy provided against the trustee of stock or shares, and power should be given to beneficiaries to place a notice on the registry in order to prevent dealings with the property, just as a distringas operated in the case of stock. Such was his scheme, but he was not, under existing circumstances prepared to advocate its adoption, for it would involve enormous difficulty and expense; he put it forward as the only real scheme for simplifying the title to land. Unless the Government were prepared to go to this extent they had much better leave registration alone, simplifying landed titles gradually and removing defects in our present system, thereby preparing the way for a more complete system.

said, there was one point in which he concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), and that was that the scheme which he proposed was utterly impracticable, and if they waited until the system adopted in the Australian Colonies could be introduced into this country they would have to wait a long time. The Bill embodied a plan which was far simpler and more feasible. The objections against the successful working of Lord Westbury's Act were, first, that it required the registry of an indefeasible title; secondly, the necessity of giving notices to adjoining owners; and, thirdly, the necessity of placing all subservient interests upon the registry, as well as the primary title to the land. This Bill was free from these objections. Under it a man might register an indefeasible title, a qualified title, or a possessory title dating from the time of registration. It was not so ambitious a Bill as that of last year, and did not make registration compulsory; but he did not agree with those who said that the measure would, for this reason, prove a nullity. On the contrary, he knew that owners were waiting for the passing of the Bill to register under it. They would not be called on to prove an indefeasible title, and there would be no slur cast upon their title by a refusal to register at all, if they could not prove an absolutely valid title. As to notices to adjoining landowners, there was one case in which, under Lord Westbury's Act, it became necessary to serve 180 such notices; and by giving these notices you not only incurred great expense, but aroused the sleeping hon. and invited adverse claims upon such questions as boundaries, fences, or the right of way. As to incumbrances, the registered owner under the Bill had full power to make a title in case of sale. It was true that persons beneficially entitled might protect themselves by putting a caution upon the registry and in other ways. There were some practical Amendments which might be adopted in Committee; but, speaking generally, he thought the Bill likely to prove acceptable to the public and a considerable benefit to vendors and purchasers of land.

thought the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had done good service by moving his Amendment, inasmuch as it had evoked a most interesting and useful discussion. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a Division. The effect of his hon. and learned Friend's Motion was, that the Bill was not the best possible one that could be desired. That, no doubt, was perfectly true; but the practical question they had to take into consideration was, whether or not the Bill would be an improvement upon the existing law. He (Mr. Jackson), for one, believed that it contained much that was valuable, and that when it had been considered in Committee, and had received some Amendments, of which it was susceptible, it would be a valuable addition to the Statute Book. The Bill contained this most valuable principle, that under its provisions the registered owner could make a title without regarding equitable or beneficial interests. That principle was a sine quâ non to any improvement, and great efforts to obtain the sanction of Parliament to that principle should be made. No doubt the first registration with any guarantee of title would involve expense, but no more expense than the present system, while for the future all registered dealings would be simplified and made more economical. For his own part, he should like to see land sold upon the same simple terms as ships were sold. The transfer of land did not differ in essence from the transfer of a ship. A ship did not pass by delivery, but by a statutable transfer, which gave the transferee a right against all the world—a right which was not affected by any equitable interests. He could see no reason to prevent us from dealing with land substantially in the same way. He did not indeed approve of the machinery of the Bill, but the Attorney General was not responsible for that. The first great requirement was some easy machinery for identifying a particular piece of land, and the only way of obtaining that desirable object was by means of cadastral maps. There being no difficulty about identifying a ship, there was no difficulty in transferring her, and if there were a good map with an accessible index to the land of that country there need be no difficulty in transferring land even without professional assistance. But without a map this would be impossible. Maps, too, to be useful must be accessible. It occurred to him that the clerks of the peace or the clerks of the Unions throughout the country might easily be appointed to take charge of those maps, and the result would be that in a few years an entirely new and simple system of land transfer would come into operation. Three maps would be required—one relating to the ownership of the fee-simple, another relating to the ownership of the mines, and a third relating to the ownership of the leaseholds. But as they would all be drawn on the same scale, no difficulty need arise from there being more than one. The mere transferring land and registering of charges might be done by the country officers in charge of the maps, while the more difficult and responsible work of deciding titles might be referred to the head office in London. The Ordnance Survey presented a basis for such a system; but when he remembered that only £7,000 had been voted this year for that survey, he felt that unless public opinion was roused years must elapse before anything was done. He was glad that the Bill did not contain compulsory clauses. No doubt an uniform system of land transfer was desirable, but they were not in possession of information which would justify the forcing of so extensive a change before they had provided the necessary machinery, or even knew what machinery would be required. The present Bill was an experiment, and for that reason it was not right that it should be forced upon the acceptance of people against their inclination. As for the fears expressed in some quarters that the object of the Bill would be defeated by the solicitors, he believed them to be entirely unwarranted. He hoped they would soon get into Committee, and that whatever Amendments were brought forward would be proposed—not in a spirit of hostility to the measure—but with a desire to improve it, and by so doing to take the first step towards the attainment of what had been done abroad and might be done here, and which, when effected, would be of the utmost importance to all classes of the community.

said, he was convinced that when on a future occasion his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jackson) proposed to have maps of the country prepared for the purpose which he had suggested, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be found in his place, and would have something to say. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that this Bill was so framed that, without being ambitious in its character, it would, with certain Amendments, tend largely towards the simplification of titles and transfers; and he was sure the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was correct in ascribing the failure of Lord Westbury's Act to the mode in which it proposed to register titles, and to ascertain the boundaries of land. Questions of boundaries and fences were very difficult to determine; but whatever difficulties might be met with in the preparation of maps, as a general rule, when property had been held for a long time with little doubt as to its real boundaries, such doubt need not prevent the register of the title in the manner proposed by the Bill. This alone would to a considerable extent simplify the transfer of land, and they would at least get rid of litigation between neighbouring landowners before the register of the title could be entered upon. It might be that in process of time far more ambitious schemes than this measure would be carried out; but when it was suggested that this Bill was inefficient, or that while it had some merits it prevented more ambitious measures being brought before Parliament, he thought it enough to consider at the present moment whether some real and absolute benefit would be derived from it. Having spoken on this question last year, his observations now should be very few; but he wished to point out that what the Bill proposed to carry out had been suggested by the Commissioners of 1857, whose Report had been so often quoted. He differed from those who said owners would not find it worth while to put their titles on the register. But it would get rid, to a great extent, of the expense of furnishing an abstract of title, and the long and cumbrous process of the existing system. Under this Bill any person having a perfect title had simply to place it on the register and say to anyone who wished to purchase—" I agree to sell you a portion of this property, and this registered title is a guarantee to you that the portion you buy is a portion which I am entitled to sell." There were great advantages also in registering a qualified title. A man who held under a deed of conveyance of 1860 might know that doubts existed as to an earlier title; but he could register the title of 1860, and that in course of time would become an absolute title. Registration would benefit those who had possessory titles, for, as the Commissioners said, the effect would be similar to that of a dam or filter across a stream—above it the water was full of impurities; below, it became purer and clearer as it flowed on. In the same way the possessory title would in progress of time become a perfect title, simply by registration. These were great advantages, and, of course, if those who were interested refused to avail themselves of them they alone would have the blame. But if it was found expedient that land should be placed upon the register he was sure that the advisers of the landed gentry would promote the process. A good deal had been said in the course of the discussions on this Bill with reference to compulsory registration, and opinions had been freely expressed in its favour and against it. The Bill of last year made registration compulsory under certain circumstances only, and having regard to the resolution which had been arrived at, to exempt properties of a small class from the operation of the register, he held that it was wise to take compulsion out of the Bill. A legal friend of his, a conveyancer, had suggested to him that registration would bear heavily upon smaller properties, and that if registration were made compulsory it should, as regarded properties under a certain value, be done at the expense of the State. That might be a very useful suggestion, but he thought it was one as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might intervene; and he thought the framers of the Bill had done well to leave compulsion out. There were, without doubt, matters of detail in the Bill which might well be discussed in Committee. As regarded perfect, qualified, and possessory titles, this Bill provided machinery which, with the aid of time, would have a material effect in simplifying titles and cheapening transfer; and he hoped that those concerned in having the transfer of land simplified would adopt the Bill, and having brought their titles on the register would show by the operation of the register upon those titles that the subject might be carried further hereafter, so that this, which had been properly called a by no means ambitious Bill, might become the foundation of future measures, which would promote the interests of the community. The objection that the profession would object to bring titles upon the register had already been answered, and he would merely say that if, instead of being paid on an absurd plan of calculating the number of sheepskins they could cover with writing, or the number of words in which they could express one idea, they had been remunerated according to the value of their labour without reference to the quantity of words which they used, we should have had a very different system from that which now existed.

said, that he did not rise to express any further opinion on the Bill, but to suggest to the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment that it was desirable either at once to proceed to a division, or else to allow the Bill to be read a second time, so as to give the House an opportunity of discussing in Committee the many suggestions which had been made for its improvement; and he would ask hon. Members generally to exercise some little self-denial, and to abstain from further discussing the details of the Bill, as it would be open to them to do so when they got into Committee. On the part of the Government, he was anxious that the fullest consideration should be given to the suggestions of hon. Members.

said, that after the discussion which had occurred, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Amendment which he had moved.

dissented from the opinion which had been expressed to the effect that the Bill would simplify the existing procedure with regard to the sale and transfer of land. The only thing that the Bill would do would be to leave the whole matter in an utterly indefinite and unsatisfactory state.

said, he had no desire to stop the progress of the measure at its present stage, but expressed a hope that the clauses would be thoroughly discussed in Committee. There were many questions which did not appear to have been so thoroughly threshed out as they ought to be. He would not offer any opposition to the Bill, which was not compulsory but optional. It no doubt presented many valuable features, and he thought the Government ought to be thanked for introducing it.

moved—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Act to Scotland generally, so far as to provide for an efficient audit of the accounts of school boards, and to enable school boards either to lease or to accept the transfer of certain existing schools."

His reason for moving this Instruction was briefly this—that in the Scotch Education Act they had not at present any means of checking the accounts of school boards, and they had not in the Act of 1872 the same facilities for leasing or transferring existing denominational schools which were enjoyed under the English Act. Under the Act of 1870 the school boards were entitled to make arrangements under which they might lease or transfer existing schools on terms to be approved of by the Education Department, and his desire was that the same should be extended to Scotland, for the purpose of enabling the school boards to obtain the use of existing schools, and to relieve the ratepayers of the expense of providing other schools.

regretted that this Bill had been brought on at a time when neither the Lord Advocate nor the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) was in his place. He might say, however, that he understood the introduction of this Bill was sanctioned by the Government on the distinct understanding that it should not apply to any other parts of Scotland than Sutherland and Caithness, and that the Scotch Education Act, as a whole, should not be touched. The engagement of the Government to support this Bill was strictly limited to its provisions as they now stood, and if the Instruction of the hon. Member were carried, it would be the duty of the Government to oppose the further progress of the Bill.

hoped that the Instruction would be agreed to—because it was a great mistake in the Act of 1872 that there was any exception. He had the misfortune to be connected with a parish where the valuation was very small, and the number of children very large, the valuation being £5,800 and the number of children over 300. They were obliged to build school accommodation for these children, and they were already assessed at 11d. in the pound, and he believed this would have to be increased to 1s. 1d. or 1s. 2d. Was it fair or just, therefore, that a school parish should be burdened with an assessment like this, when parishes in Sutherland and Caithness, which were far more able to pay, should be let off with 9d.? He looked upon it as most unjust, and hoped before long they would have an amendment of the Scotch Education Act, and that all parishes which were paying above a certain rate should be exempted. The idea of exempting the whole counties of Sutherland and Caithness, however, was absurd, when they knew that they were able to pay. He hoped the House would either agree to the Instruction or not allow this Bill to proceed further.

said, after the distinct statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, that in the event of the Motion being carried the Government would oppose the further progress of the Bill, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment.

rose to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill this day three months—when—

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till To-morrow

said, he wished to obtain from his noble Friend some statement as to the views of the Government on the right of women to study and practise medicine in this country.

replied that the question of the rights of women to practise medicine would not be prejudiced by the Bill of the hon. Member for Maidstone; but, as the Government were desirous that there should be no uncertainty on the point, he had given Notice of an Amendment which would show beyond all doubt that the status quo was in no way affected by the present measure, the sole object of which was to enable the College of Surgeons to do what the Act of 1858 was intended to enable them to do. The subject of the medical education of women had only very lately been submitted to the attention of the Government, and they could pronounce no opinion upon it. The Government would, however, consider the matter carefully during the Recess, so as to be able to express an opinion next year as to whether legislation was desirable or not.

rose to call attention to the action of the Metropolitan Asylums Board with reference to the proposed erection of a permanent Hospital for Contagious Diseases near Hampstead Heath; and to move for a Select Committee

"To inquire into and report upon the clauses of the Metropolitan Poor Act (30 Vic. c. 6), giving powers to the managers of asylums to take, hold, and dispose of lands and other property for the purposes of the Act."

The hon. Member said, that the question to which his Motion referred, although apparently of merely local interest, affected the whole body of ratepayers throughout the Metropolis, and also the many thousands who on Sundays and holidays frequented Hampstead Heath. In the year 1867 the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed, by which a very useful body, entitled "the Metropolitan Asylums Board" was created. One of its functions was the erection of asylums for infectious diseases in case of the outbreak of epidemics in the Metropolis. With laudable activity they devised a general scheme for the erection of hospitals in the North, South, and Eastern districts, and proceeded to secure sites, and did, in fact, obtain a site at Stockwell, another at Homerton, and a third at Hampstead. The last named selection was strongly objected to, as being quite unfit for the object in view and because it was situated in a very populous district, and inferior to other sites in the same locality which were unobjectionable—and the scheme was protested against by the magistrates, the vestries, and the great bulk of the residents. In spite of those objections the Asylums Board enclosed the site, made approaches, and erected a house for a medical superintendent. They did nothing further, except that on the outbreak of smallpox temporary sheds were put up, to which many patients suffering from that disease were admitted. The sheds remained as temporary hospitals for 18 months, during which time smallpox appeared in many houses in the neighbourhood—after that time they were occupied by pauper imbeciles. In October last, the sheds having become decayed, the Asylums Board revived the idea of building a permanent hospital, and the inhabitants taking alarm an influential deputation—which he had the honour of introducing—waited upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who paid the utmost attention to the remonstrances which were made, but said that the Asylums Board were only carrying out their duty; that having obtained possession of a site they were bound to make use of that site. The right hon. Gentleman, however, added that if they (the deputation) were able to find a site without the disadvantages alleged against that they already had, and equally eligible, he would advise the Board to accept it. Acting on this hint the inhabitants—although they did not feel called upon to find a site—had five sites offered them, three of which they submitted to the Board, each being, in their opinion, superior to the one in possession of the Board, but one in every respect far superior. The Board, however, refused to adopt any one of them, alleging that the one most recommended and eligible was at a greater distance than was desirable for the parties for whose relief the hospital was intended; next, that the owners of property in the neighbourhood would object; thirdly, the proximity of a reservoir the property of the Grand Junction Water Works; and, fourthly, that the Mill Lane neighbourhood would probably be built over. None of these objections had the slightest validity. With respect to the first, he could only say that it was not a matter of much moment, as the Asylum when erected would only be used when the hospitals at Stockwell and Homerton were full. As to the objections of owners of property, of course owners of property would always object to a hospital being built in their neighbourhood; but he would remind the House that, while 50,000 persons had petitioned against the proposed site at Hampstead, not one Petition had been presented in its favour. He did not, however, attach much importance to Petitions when he remembered that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had stated that 300,000 persons had petitioned in favour of the Tichborne Claimant, and numerous Petitions had that day been presented in favour of the Permissive Bill—two objects of about equal usefulness to the public. Then as to the reservoir, Dr. Frankland had stated that gases emanating from the hospital might contaminate the water, the bottom of which was, he said, 23 feet below the level of the hospital. Dr. Frankland had been altogether misinformed. The reservoir was arched over with brickwork and covered to the depth of three feet with earth and turf, and the drain about to be formed would be 30 feet below the reservoir. It was impossible, therefore, that the water could be at all contaminated, and he had the authority of Dr. Letheby for stating that the fear expressed on the subject was altogether groundless. He might dismiss that objection altogether, especially as the Water Company who were most interested in the matter had taken no notice of the proposed erection of the hospital in the neighbourhood of their reservoir. Another reason alleged in favour of the Hampstead Heath site was that Mill Lane would probably be built over. There was a vast difference, however, between bringing a nuisance to an existing neighbourhood and bringing the neighbourhood to the nuisance. In the present case an insufferable nuisance was proposed to be created in a populous neighbourhood. In the other case the site was in the midst of green fields with scarcely any houses near them, and if, when this site had been selected, people chose to come and live in close promimity to the hospital it was their affair, and it was not a case for legislative interference. There were other reasons in favour of the Mill Lane site. It was singularly isolated, having on one side the water reservoir, on another a cemetery, on a third the railway, and on the fourth Mill Lane. The site was, indeed, scarcely suited for any other purpose. The approach was also very superior to the Hampstead Heath site. It was approached in three directions, and a broad road already rendered it of easy access. In the case of the other site, it was approached only by a lane 22 feet in width, with a public-house at the corner, at which those who brought patients to the hospital would certainly stop, with the probability of spreading the contagion. In purchasing this site, the Asylums Board was under the impression that an approach might be made in a different direction; but the roadway upon which they might have relied was private property, and no sooner did the owner discover the purpose to which the site was to be applied than he put a barrier against the road, and that barrier would be maintained as long as he was threatened by so uncomfortable a neighbour. With respect to population, there was within a radius of half a-mile of the Mill Lane site only one-tenth of the population of Haverstock Hill. The pockets of the ratepayers ought certainly to be specially borne in mind by the Asylums Board. With the outlay already incurred, the proposed site at Hampstead had cost £26,000, while the site which was in other respects so much better might be secured for £11,000. The first site had an area of eight acres, and the other of 11 acres; so that the cost of the Mill Lane site would be less than half, while the area was considerably larger. Under these circumstances, it was difficult to understand why the Asylums Board had so persistently, and, he might say, so obstinately enforced their views against the wishes of the ratepayers of the neighbourhood, who had, on account of the healthiness of the locality, sought the residences to which the Board now insisted on bringing this nuisance. It was sometimes difficult to discriminate between firmness and obstinacy, and to point out where the one ended and the other began. In the present case he could not but feel that so little reason had been adduced by the Asylums Board for the course they had adopted that he was obliged to think that, although they might have at first thought they were right, they had by degrees drifted into perverseness and unreasoning obstinacy. He would not longer detain the House. His object was to obtain a Select Committee, and he trusted that the Government would assent to the Motion, so that a Committee might look into the Act and meet the difficulty. The recurrence of such complaints might thus be prevented, and the ratepayers of the Metropolis might be protected against another arbitrary proceeding of a similar nature on the part of the Asylums Board. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of the Committee.

, in seconding the Motion, regretted that it had been necessary, because he had hoped that the strong and almost unanimous feeling of the inhabitants of Hampstead and the opposition manifested everywhere in London, if it could not overcome the obstinacy of the Asylums Board, would have led the President of the Local Government Board to withhold his sanction from a scheme which had encountered such general and reasonable opposition. He supposed that other Members had, like himself, received a circular signed "John Harry Jones," which asserted that all the pressure brought to bear to remove the hospital from the site proposed had been in the interest of a few persons who owned land contiguous to the site and who wished in consequence to get rid of the hospital. There never was a statement more unfounded. The meetings which had been held showed that the opposition to the proposed hospital was enthusiastic, spontaneous, and almost universal. He had personally inspected the proposed site, and it was the simple truth to state that it was in the midst of a populous neighbourhood, in the vicinity of most respectable houses, close to Hampstead Heath, and not far from the "Vale of Health"—which would be so called hereafter in irony. Hon. Members must all recollect the pains which had been taken to preserve the Heath from encroachment by the lord of the manor. A vigilance committee had been formed by the inhabitants, and the ratepayers and others had spent about £40,000 in securing, by an Act of Parliament, the Heath from invasion. The Heath was approached by only one thoroughfare, and all the holiday visitors going to the Heath by the way of Haverstock Hill would pass by the proposed hospital on their way. In the vicinity were many schools and orphanages, and many persons who desired change of air were drawn to the Heath by its reputation for salubrity. All these were reasons for not choosing the Heath as the site of a hospital if a less objectionable situation would be found. It might be denied that there was any danger of infection. The people of Hampstead had had some little experience on this point, because there had been erected a smallpox hospital on this site during the prevalence of that epidemic, and a Committee appointed to inquire into the truth of the allegation that smallpox had not broken out in the vicinity of the hospital reported that in a block of houses immediately contiguous 88 cases of smallpox had occurred in 57 houses which were inhabited at the time of the epidemic. There was an outbreak of smallpox at Hampstead which was attributed to the location of the smallpox hospital there. If it was true, as alleged, that there was no danger of contagion, let it be proposed to build a hospital in Victoria Street, in proximity to the Houses of Parliament, or Buckingham Palace, or in any crowded thoroughfare, and he was sure the House of Commons would unanimously put its veto upon any such proposal. It might be said—" Hospitals must be somewhere, and why should Hampstead be especially favoured?" But he did not ask that Hampstead should be favoured. What he said was, let that part of Hampstead be chosen to which there was the least objection. The inhabitants were not so unreasonable as to say that no part of Hampstead should be occupied by a hospital; but they offered the Board two other sites, either of which would be less objectionable than that which the Board had chosen. He would speak only of the more eligible of these two alternative sites—that in Mill Lane. Hon. Members had received maps in which were drawn circles, and the circle enclosing this site consisted of green fields and a few cottages, and the only objection to appropriating the land for this purpose was that it had been let to a speculative builder. But it was one thing to erect a hospital in the midst of houses already built, and another to erect it on land only let for building; and if the builder lost by his speculation, why, that would only prove that there was well-founded fear of living too near a hospital. Another alleged objection to this site was the contiguity of a reservoir of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, the water in which, it was said, might be poisoned by filtration or soakage of the drainage from the hospital; but the sewage of the hospital could be diverted and carried down to a main sewer many feet below the level of the reservoir, so that there could not be the possibility of contamination. The Hampstead Committee were prepared to save the Asylums Board from any extra expense to be incurred in the adoption of this site, and the fact that they were ready to raise £29,000, which would cover all extra expense, was a very strong proof of their sincerity in this matter. A distinguished member of the Health of Towns Commission (Professor Owen) had given an opinion that ascertained facts bearing on the transmission of the germs of fever, and especially of scarlatina, were such as to attach a very grave responsibility to the Asylums Board in building a hospital on the site they had chosen if a site more isolated could be obtained; and such an opinion deserved consideration. The committee of the inhabitants had sent a deputation to the President of the Local Government Board, and had been very fairly received, and they had done all they could to induce the Asylums Board to alter its decision. At last they came to this House to ask it to grant a Committee of Inquiry, in order that it might be determined whether their fears were well-founded. He hoped the House, without expressing any opinion as to which was the best site, would refer the matter to a Committee.

said, the House was now asked to do what it had refused to do that very morning—namely, to interfere in a local squabble and to discuss a question as to the eligibility of sites. In 1867 the House created a new corporation to deal with the great question of health, and it confided to a Board, to be duly elected, the necessary discretion and powers; and there could hardly be a worse precedent than that the House should now, at the instance of dissatisfied residents in one locality, however influential, appoint a Select Committee to consider details which had been discussed in the papers for the last six months. He would not say a word in deprecation of the agitation of the people of Hampstead against having a pest-house placed in their midst. Although not in his borough, he had thoroughly surveyed the site to which objection was taken, and he had done all he could to ascertain what was to be said on both sides; but nevertheless he declined to express in the House any judgment at all, on the ground that it was not for the good and dignity of the House that it should be called upon to arbitrate in the matter. If the Asylums Board were charged with having neglected its duty, or with being corrupt, he would not oppose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Act; but from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder there could be no doubt that the object of the Motion was to transfer what they themselves described as an unmitigated nuisance from one end of Hampstead to another. In order to extricate the House from the necessity of discussing so small a question as that of Hampstead Heath versus Mill Lane, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that now, after six years' experience of the working of the Act, the Committee should inquire whether new general hospitals for infectious diseases were desirable or necessary. He referred the Government to the great body of cumulative proof that was within their reach, and left no doubt as to the opinion of medical men with regard to the danger of gathering together in huge hospitals numbers of persons who were suffering from the same disease. This was not a question merely as to the advisability of selecting this or that particular site in the neighbourhood of the metropolis for the erection of a gigantic fever or smallpox hospital, but whether great evil would not result from erecting such buildings at all. In reply to inquiries which he himself had made, he received communications on this subject from a number of medical men of considerable eminence. Doctor Septimus Gibbon, who had been the medical officer for 10 or 12 years to the densely populated union of Holborn, said—

"All large hospitals for fever and small-pox are a mistake in a preventive as well as a curative sense. The mortality in the best-appointed hospitals is three times greater than in home treatment. In 1863 small-pox killed in London 2,012; in 1871 it killed 7,876, owing to the hospital treatment adopted. Patients in typhus, small-pox, or scarlet fever emit the seeds of disease very copiously into the atmosphere, so that any transport of them through the streets is sure to spread the disease. A small detached infirmary of a few rooms is all that each locality requires."

Doctor Ross, who had been for 15 years the medical officer of the Bloomsbury district, wrote to him—

"Huge fever hospitals in the suburbs are a mistake, inconvenient, costly, and ill-adapted to the cure of the sufferers. In an advanced case removal would be perilous, in an extreme case certain death. Often where isolation would be necessary the patient could not be removed. This, I have no hesitation in saying, is and will be the practical result of such a system. How can the interests of the sick and the healthy be reconciled? By having 'refuges' in every district, so that proper isolation may be insured, and the patients not unduly distressed by removal."

He had further received a communication from Doctor Tidy, the medical officer of the parish of Islington—where the population was at least a quarter of a million—who said—

"If the building of a general small-pox hospital be a necessity, I consider the site at Hampstead as good as could be found anywhere. But are permanent small-pox hospitals necessary or advisable? In my opinion they certainly are not. The aggregation of disease is, under all circumstances, the aggravation of disease. I hold positively that in the time of epidemic, temporary hospitals are infinitely preferable to large buildings. The records of deaths in fever hospitals are sad stories of lives that, I believe, might otherwise have been saved. I am certain that permanent fever hospitals are nuisances."

The aggregation of disease was its aggravation, and that, he (Mr. Torrens) believed, was the opinion entertained in foreign countries. The evil of collecting together large numbers of infected persons had been long seen in Germany and in America, where the plan was now adopted of treating persons suffering from contagious diseases of this character in small numbers, and in temporary buildings which could be utterly destroyed after the sick had been removed. Great stone permanent hospitals were, in his opinion, permanent blunders and led to permanent jobs. He did not know what course Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt on the question, but he respectfully submitted that if the Committee moved for nine to be appointed its powers should be enlarged so as to enable it to inquire into the necessity for erecting hospitals of this character in any part of the metropolis. He begged therefore to move the addition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex words to the effect he had mentioned.

said, he declined to consider this as a question which concerned the inhabitants of Hampstead merely; it was one which vitally affected the deepest interests of the working classes of this great Metropolis. It was solely on that ground that he thought it the duty of the House to put some stop to a scheme which, if carried into effect, would nullify the advantages of one of the most healthful resorts of the people. This House had been for years engaged in efforts to elevate the moral, social, and physical condition of the people, and therefore they ought to pause before planting an enormous pest-house in the midst of one of the most interesting of our suburbs. What was this body which called itself the Board of Management of the Metropolitan Asylums District? He was puzzled to find whence they came. The Act of Parliament under which this Board claimed to derive its authority never contemplated the existence of such a body. The 30th & 31st Vict. provided that the huge metropolitan area should be divided into districts, and that the Board should have the power of establishing one or more asylums, but it never contemplated that there should be one general body dealing with the whole metropolitan area as one district, such as the Board they had now to deal with. He did not want to go into the merits of this site or that site, but he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had hit the nail on the head when he proposed that there should be an inquiry into the authority of the Board under the Act, and whether what they had done was or was not a justifiable exercise of their authority. The question was an important one and deserving of consideration, and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would grant the Committee in order that they might arrive at a just conclusion as to what was necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.

said, he need not inform the House that this question of Hampstead Hospital had given him no small amount of trouble during the last six months, occasioned him no small anxiety, and taken up no small portion of his time. He might state at the outset that neither he nor the Government had taken the slightest pains to interest hon. Members on this question, or to induce them to vote on one side or the other. The Government considered that this was a proposal which they were in no way bound to resist, should it be the pleasure of the House to appoint a Committee; and his hon. Friend who would address the House presently on the part of the Asylums Board (Mr. J. G. Talbot) would state that that body did not shrink from, but rather courted an inquiry. At the same time, it was his bounden duty, as the head of his Department, to lay before the House certain reasons which should induce it to pause before arriving at the conclusion that the appointment of this Committee was either expedient or desirable. And in justice to his own Department and to subordinate departments which exercised functions of importance, he felt bound to lay before the House practical reasons which might lead it to see that in some respects the question was a very small, while in others it was a very large one. In the first place, he held that no sufficient case had been made for the Motion. His hon. Friend (Mr. Coope) asked the House to rip up the most important parts of one of the most important Acts affecting the Metropolis passed in our generation. Among the many services for which the name of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hardy) would go down to posterity, there was none more important than the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1867. The clauses to which his hon. Friend took exception had produced the most admirable results, both with respect to the ratepayers and the poor, and the House ought to be very careful before it allowed the operation of that Act to go before a Select Committee, with a view to its alteration. Great things had been done under the Act of his right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Gordon) had stated that the constitution of this Asylums Board was not contemplated by the Act. All he could say on that point was, that the moment the Act was passed the first thing his right hon. Friend did was to constitute that Board. The object of the Act was that the several classes of sick should be separated, so as to be more effectively treated than they could he under the old law, and the first thing his right hon. Friend did was to constitute the Metropolis into a district, so that those unfortunate persons might be taken from the hospitals in which they had been before and treated in a more scientific and effective manner. The constitution of the Board was this—45 members from the Guardians of the different Unions of the Metropolis were elected by those Unions to represent them on the Board, and to these were added 15 members nominated by the Local Government Board. The body so constituted, consisting of 60 members, had within a period of six or seven years provided, at the expense of the Common Fund of the Metropolis, separate accommodation and treatment for about 4,000 of the imbecile who were not sufficiently lunatic to be maintained in lunatic asylums, and had also provided fever and smallpox hospitals. The two hospitals of Homerton and Stock-well had been built as permanent establishments for ordinary use. It was felt from the first that those two permanent establishments were not sufficient to meet the necessities of the Metropolis; other pieces of ground were therefore purchased, and among them that at Hampstead. A piece of ground was also purchased at Brompton and another at the East End of the town, and if epidemics unhappily broke out it would be the duty of the Asylums Board to avail themselves of those purchases; but no such necessity had as yet arisen. The members of the Asylums Board had made great personal sacrifices in maintaining and watching the working of these establishments. He said, without fear of contradiction, that the dangers encountered and the anxious responsibilities incurred by the members who had served on the Committees of the Asylums Board any hon. Member might well shrink from, and therefore when he heard them found fault with and reviled as if they were almost enemies of the human race, he could not help remembering, on the other hand, the great sacrifices they had made, the great risks they had run, and the great security they had been the means of giving to the public mind that in the time of an epidemic the most dreadful of infectious diseases would be removed from their own localities and treated in separate establishments. He could not help thinking that it would be a bad precedent if the House of Commons appointed a Committee to go into those local affairs. The question which had arisen between the Asylums Board and Hampstead was precisely that which might arise between the Board of Guardians of every Union in the kingdom and the inhabitants. Every Sanitary Authority was under an obligation to provide accommodation for the treatment of infectious diseases, and there would be no end to interference with local self-government if the House of Commons was to come in as the arbiter whenever a local difficulty arose. Therefore, he said a serious precedent would be established if this Committee were appointed. He would not go into the debateable matters which had arisen during the last nine months on this subject. On the one side it was said little if any injury had been done to Hampstead by the existence of the hospital; and on the other it was said that it formed a centre of infection for the district. Were he to give any opinion he should say that the hospital had been overcrowded with patients, and it would have been well if the other sites had been availed of; but he could not for a moment doubt that the existence of the hospital had been a great advantage both to the Metropolis at large and to the poor for whose benefit it was intended. He must also state his distinct opinion that the pleasure-seekers on Hampstead Heath were no more prejudiced by the existence of the hospital than the pleasure-seekers in Kensington Gardens or Battersea Park. At the same time, no doubt, a vast amount of prejudice had been excited on the subject, and if it were the pleasure of the House of Commons to appoint a Committee to investigate the subject he could not say he should be inclined to object. But in addition to the reasons he had already stated he would say what he had repeated over and over again—that there was no intention of building a permanent hospital at all on this ground. At an early period in March, 1874, seeing that the wooden sheds were in decay, it was proposed that they should be replaced by buildings of a more substantial character; and that was the only foundation of the delusion which appeared to prevail that a permanent hospital was about to be established. He could only say there was no such intention on the part of the Asylums Board; and, as no permanent hospital could be built without his sanction, he had repeatedly told those who were interested in the matter that he had no intention of giving his sanction to such a proposal even if it were entertained; but no such intention existed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Coope) who brought forward this subject had referred to the deputations which had waited on him in the autumn of last year. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) then stated he should be extremely glad if an alternative site could be found, and he did everything in his power to bring those alternative sites before the Asylums Board. But he had no power to oblige them to adopt an alternative site, and he hoped no such power would be recommended by the Committee. The objection to the first and second proposed sites was undoubtedly sound. The third was a very plausible site to suggest. He had visited it himself, and it seemed in every respect most suitable. Many members of the Asylums Board were of the same opinion; but its opponents took a leaf out of the book of the Hampstead Committee. They procured an opinion from Dr. Frank-land that the water in a certain reservoir would be likely to convey the germs of fever or other infectious disease to the inhabitants of Grosvenor Square. His hon. and learned Friend who seconded the motion (Mr. Forsyth) stated that he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had given his sanction to the building of the hospital at Hampstead. That was not so. He repeated that there was no such intention. In all human probability the two permanent hospitals—Homerton and Stockwell—would be sufficient, and there would be no occasion for another permanent hospital. If the House wished to appoint a Select Committee to consider the policy of the Asylums Board, he would offer no objection; but he was strongly opposed to the appointment of a Committee to sit upon the provisions of the Metropolitan Poor Act, which he ventured to say had been worked with great benefit both to the poor and the ratepayers. The Asylums Board deserved every consideration on the part of the House, and he should be sorry to see their conduct impugned.

said, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to the pledge he had just given that no permanent hospital of this kind should be erected on Hampstead Heath. He (Mr. Collins) had identified himself with hon. Members in the discussion and consideration of the subject for the last six or eight months, but this was the first official intimation he had received that there was no intention of proceeding with the erection of a permanent hospital on Hampstead Heath. He supported the hon. Member for Middlesex simply in the interest of the working classes, who were in the habit of resorting to Hampstead Heath in holiday, and of the numerous institutions located there in which a large number of children were maintained and educated.

wished to remind the House of a saying of the Prime Minister's that the House was "a Senate rather than a Vestry," and protested against so much time having been occupied with a matter of a comparatively local nature. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, of which he was a member, had received from numerous important bodies of their constituents expressions of approval of the site selected. That support had been received from the parishes of Paddington; St. Mathew, Bethnal Green; St. Mary, Islington; St. Leonard's, Shoreditch; Chelsea, and the Guardians of the City of London Union. The House would therefore observe that the Board had not exactly been acting contrary to the general feeling of the Metropolis in this matter. It must, no doubt, be admitted that they had been acting contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants of a certain part of Hampstead. Naturally people objected to have an hospital built close to where they lived; but it was necessary in a matter of this kind to consider the wants of the Metropolis as a whole. The wish of the Asylums Board was to effect the greatest amount of public good with the least inconvenience to the inhabitants of any particular locality, and they had attempted to do so in this instance. As to the assertion that the proposed hospital would interfere with the enjoyment of Hampstead Heath, there was no more foundation for it than there would be for saying that the Fever Hospital in Liverpool Road interfered with the enjoyment of visitors to the Agricultural Hall. A comparison had been drawn in the course of the discussion between the mortality in hospitals and the mortality in the homes of the poor; but it must be remembered that the reason why the latter was small was that so many patients were removed from their homes to the hospitals, so that the worst cases, in which there was the largest mortality, were in the hospitals and not in the homes. He challenged any one to deny that the Asylums Board had done great good to the Metropolis. Small-pox had almost been stamped out, and the virulent forms of fever had been considerably diminished. If the Board were not hindered by a factious opposition to their proceedings, he was convinced there would be still greater improvement witnessed. It could not be denied that there must be a third hospital somewhere, and the only question was, whether the site at Hampstead was not as suitable as any other which could be obtained. As to the site which had been proposed in Mill Lane, West End, a report of Professor Frankland—perhaps the greatest authority in regard to water supply—was conclusive against it. Professor Frankland found that the erection of the hospital at that place would be attended with considerable risk to the health of the customers of the Grand Junction Water Company. His report said—

"I ascertained by rough measurement that the floor of the reservoir is 23 feet below the surface of the surrounding soil upon which the hospital is, as I was informed, to be built; and although engineers may perhaps have confidence in their appliances for the prevention of soakage from the sewers of the hospital into the reservoir, yet I would deprecate the exposure of a large population to the fatal effects which would result from the failure of such appliances. The risk is increased by the circumstance that it is intended to use the reservoir for the storage of filtered water, because, if contamination of the water occurred, there would be no chance of its removal before the distribution of the polluted beverage to consumers."

Without expressing any opinion of his own upon this report, he (Mr. Talbot) could not see how a hospital could be erected upon a site to which so much suspicion would attach in the event of any epidemic occurring in those parts of the Metropolis which were supplied from this reservoir. If the House desired the appointment of this Committee he would not oppose it, but he thought it unnecessary, and he would much prefer if the Motion were not pressed.

said, that if the proposed hospital was to be erected on the present site, which was within a quarter of a mile of his residence, where he had resided for some years, he should take the earliest opportunity of quitting that district. At the time the temporary building was used as a small-pox hospital hundreds of houses in the neighbourhood became empty, and more persons were attacked with small-pox in that district than in any other part of the Metropolis.

said, he was prepared to adopt the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board, and limit the object of the Committee to the desirableness or otherwise of establishing an hospital at Hampstead.

proposed that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the action of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in respect of the establishment of a Fever and Small Pox Hospital at Hampstead.

said, that if the House were to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into every proposed hospital for infectious diseases, if it happened to be objected to by the inhabitants of any neighbourhood, they would have enough to do. He thought the House was about to set a most dangerous precedent, and would oppose the Motion.

hoped the hon. Member for Liverpool would not divide the House on this question. The erection of the proposed hospital affected a large portion of the Metropolis, and the House ought to have some control over a matter of so much importance to the public health.

did not intend to divide the House, but merely to enter a protest against the principle sought to be established.

rose, according to Notice, to move for leave to introduce a Bill for Triennial Parliaments. The hon. Member was proceeding to address the House, when—