asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that war has broken out with the Zulus, and that in consequence troops have been despatched from the Cape?

Sir, we have no information whatever of war having broken out with the Zulus; but it is probable that, having regard to the unsettled condition of that part of South Africa, some additional troops have been sent from the Cape to the Transvaal.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can exercise any authority to compel the officials of the Great Western Railway Company to refrain from putting into second motion trains which, having arrived at their destination and come to a standstill, are once more moved forwards at the moment that passengers are in the act of alighting, the motion in question placing travellers in peril?

Sir, I regret to learn from a letter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has sent me that on a recent occasion he was subjected to the inconvenience, not to say danger, to which his Question refers; but I have to inform him that I have no power whatever to interfere with railway companies in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, On whose authority he stated in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August 1875, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was not the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin in 1847; whether the person who gave him the information is still in the service of the Government or receiving a pension; and, whether it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September last by Superintendent Williamson of Scotland Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury were one and the same person, and that she had been so convicted in Dublin as alleged.

, in reply, said, that what he had stated with regard to the identity of a person named Mercivina Caulfield with Mrs. Mina Jury, was that the only official record that could be found in Ireland showed that in June, 1847, a woman named Mercivina Caulfield was sentenced to seven years' transportation for felony, and sailed in 1848 to Hobart Town; but no documents could be found to show what subsequently became of her, and no person who could identify her with Mrs. Mina Jury, and that the latter entirely denied that she was the same person. The detective authorities at Scotland Yard were not aware of the fact to which the hon. Member had alluded at the time she was examined as a witness in the Tichborne trial. The gentleman who gave the information on which he based his answer in August, 1875, held, and worthily filled, a high position in the service—a position which he trusted he would long remain in. The only reference to Mrs. Mina Jury which the Solicitor to the Treasury could find in the evidence given by Superintendent Williamson at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September last was in an answer in which he said that one of the defendants was engaged on the 4th of July, 1875, in inquiries into a case which related to Mercy A. Corfield and Mrs. Mina Jury.

raised the question, whether the clause was in its right place? In its present position, it might be taken as an intimation to the Committee that there was nothing in the Bill which could affect Scotland and Ireland. Could the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that there was nothing in the subsequent clauses which would impose a liability on England that was not to be subsequently imposed on Scotland and Ireland?

said, that whenever a Bill was introduced which was intended to apply to England only, words such as those in this clause were placed in the fore-front of the Bill.

suggested, that if there were any reason for the doubt suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) the clause might be postponed.

thought that the Amendment hardly did justice to the guardians. It might, perhaps, not be considered an impertinence in him to suggest that the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had not much experience amongst English guardians. He (Mr. Harcourt) imagined that what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had in view in framing this clause, was, in the first place, to secure the services of a certain number of persons, who had knowledge, experience, and time at their disposal, to assist in the management of these affairs; and next, to obtain a certain number of guardians to take their proper share in the conduct of the business. Service on such committees meant a sacrifice of time—it meant a sacrifice of money; and time to a busy man, and money to those who were not very well off, were grave considerations. He believed that the guardians, if they had their choice, would select the very men to serve on these committees, whose numbers the Amendment of the hon. Member would be instrumental in curtailing; and, therefore, on the ground of its unfairness to the guardians, he would vote against the Amendment.

said, that, practically, the ex-officio guardians were always fewer in number than the elected guardians, so that they would be in a minority on these committees. The clause was only a transcript of the existing law, which had worked well for 15 or 20 years; and which, so far as he knew, had not given rise to any complaint that the magistrates took too large a part in the business of the guardians.

thought it important that the present constitution of the assessment committee should not be interfered with. Had the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board attempted a real reform of county administration, he should have been glad to have seen the adoption of such checks as the hon. Member for Cavan suggested; but, in the present state of matters, he did not see the necessity for them. The guardians could safely be intrusted with the duty of saying how many ex-officio guardians should be placed on the committee. The proviso that at least a third of the committee should be ex-officio guardians was, no doubt, intended to prevent the committees being composed exclusively of elected guardians, and that was; he presumed, in accordance with the former Act. He did not wish to interfere with the position held by ex-officio guardians on the assessment committees. He was quite aware that much was owing to magistrates in the management of local business; but he could not allow this clause—the first one in the Bill treating of the position of the magistrates—to pass, without saying that it was of importance to the public that when great public responsibilities were being placed upon the magistrates, something should also be done to take away the political taint attaching to their appointment. He knew unions in which gentlemen lived who, from position and ability, were in every way suitable for places in the commission of the peace, and who would, therefore, be eligible as ex-officio guardians; but who were kept out of those positions owing to the political predilections of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. This was a crying injustice, which tainted the administration of local affairs; and while he was unprepared to interfere with the present proposal, he thought it was worthy of consideration what check could be put upon the scandals created by the Lords Lieutants. On this clause, he believed he had a right to make these remarks; and he hoped a time would come when there would be some mode of controlling the Lords Lieutenants in these appointments. The Lord Chancellor had a nominal authority, but had no real power to interfere, and on both sides of politics the appointment to the magistracy was often partial.

thought the question raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not before the Committee. The Amendment which was before the Committee appeared to be based on the fallacious supposition that the interests of the ex-officio guardians and those of the elected guardians were opposed. His experience did not bear out this view. He had known differences between town and country guardians, but not between elected and ex-officio guardians. There was not the remotest chance of assessment committees being entirely made up of ex-officio guardians. There was much difficulty in getting them to attend to county duties as they ought; and, therefore, in this Bill a provision had been made to meet cases where ex-officio guardians in the proportion of one-third could not be found willing to serve. The hon. Member for Cavan need have no fear that the assessment committees would be filled by ex-officio guardians.

thought the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had made a very inconsequential speech. He had declaimed against a tribunal in consequence of the appointments thereto being in the hands of Lords Lieutenants, and yet he opposed the Amendment, which would make it impossible that the assessment committees could be injuriously affected by the political bias which he complained of. If it were almost impossible to get ex-officio guardians to the number of one-third to sit on these Boards, he wished to know what objection could be maintained against an Amendment which, if adopted, would leave on the face of the Statute evidence of the fairness with which it was passed? If the Amendment were passed, it could, at least, do no harm, and it was not unusual to legislate for remote contingencies. It being agreed that a certain portion of the ex-officio guardians were persons appointed by reason of political preferences, what objection could there be to an Amendment which would provide against an undue political infusion into these assessment committees? He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would admit the words suggested by the hon. Member for Cavan.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to have entirely misapprehended the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley. That hon. Member had not supported the alteration of the clause, because the clause simply stated the existing law. He had not argued that the existing ex-officio guardians would carry any political bias into the assessment committees. He had simply made a statement to the Committee, the accuracy of which it would be difficult to question, that the absolute power of the Lord Lieutenant in the nomination of magistrates led to the exclusion, from political bias, of many gentlemen fitted to be on the magisterial bench, and fitted to be members of the assessment committee. There was, in his (Mr. Stansfeld's) opinion, no very strong reason against the Amendment; but to those practically acquainted with the law, there was a sufficient reason for not pressing it in the fact that, practically, there was no chance of any Board of Guardians electing more than half of the assessment committee from the ex-officio guardians. The difficulty was to get the smaller proportion to serve. As a general rule, Parliament did not alter a clause, which was meant as a consolidation and re-enactment of existing law, unless on sufficient cause shown. This did not appear to be the case in the present instance.

remarked, that this question might become so important to Ireland that Irish Members ought not to let it be decided without a division, if necessary. English Bills were often made models for Irish ones; and Irish Members ought to protest against its being made possible to throw the whole valuation of the property of a district into the hands of a class practically drawn from the landowners.

thought he had seldom heard more intensely Conservative speeches than those made by the hon. Member for Burnley and the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken from the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Stansfeld). Both admitted that they had objections to placing too much power in the hands of ex-officio guardians as at present constituted. Why, then, did they not try to give some practical effect to their objections? So far as he could see, the only reason why these advanced Liberals declined to give practical effect to their objections was, that this clause was a re-statement of the existing law. Was it, then, the new Liberal principle that existing law was not to be amended? That would seem to be the only conclusion to be drawn from the arguments addressed to the Committee by the hon. and right hon. Members. If the Government thought it necessary to provide that at least one-third of the assessment committees should consist of ex-officio guardians, why did not they make some similar provision protecting the rights of elected guardians? The Committee were told that it was very difficult to get ex-officio guardians to work on these committees, and, in some cases, almost impossible. Therefore, in cases where one-third did not consent to serve on the assessment committee, there would be no assessment committee under the provisions of the Bill in that particular district. Of course, that did not appear in the Bill; but it was the legitimate conclusion to be formed from the logic with which the clause had been supported. Why should not the whole matter be left open, so that the electors might choose a committee entirely of elected guardians, or of ex-officio guardians, or of both, as they saw fit? He certainly saw no reason for special protection of the interests of ex-officio guardians, who were already abundantly protected by their position and influence in their respective counties.

thought it must be obvious that the hon. Member who had last spoken had made his speech without having read the clause on which he was commenting. His (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) objection to the Amendment was, that he thought it conceivable that in some parts of England it might be the pleasure of the guardians, as a whole, to have more than the half of the assessment committee composed of magistrates, and he thought they had a right to exercise that option.

said, the ex-officio guardians were already given a very full representation on the Poor Law Board, and, if they attended, it was within their power to place as many of their number as they chose upon the assessment committees. But the clause, as it stood, apparently sought to provide that even if ex-officio guardians did not attend when these assessment committees were being appointed, there should be a certain proportion of them placed upon these committees. Power was given to these absentees and neglecters of duty to secure for themselves of at least one-third on these committees. The Committee should either leave the Boards of Guardians to decide by vote among themselves what proportion of ex-officio guardians should sit on the assessment committees, or say that there should be a certain proportion of elected guardians as well as ex-officio guardians. The clause did neither of these two things, but made a stipulation which was unfair to the elected guardians, unless modified by the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan. He would, therefore, support his hon. Friend if he went to a division. If he appeared to take a greater interest in this Amendment than the hon. Member for Burnley, it was because in Ireland there was, perhaps, more reason to regret the effects of such a system of electing guardians than in England. Of course, it would be the better for England if any benefit were derived from the attention which Irish Members paid to this subject. If they did not, then this was the misfortune, as well as the fault, of the system which brought Irish Members to that House. He had known repeatedly cases of ex-officio members of Boards of Guardians brought over to election meetings from all parts of the world. He had known them come from London, from Yorkshire, from Paris—one had come even from Italy—to a guardians' meeting, when there was a place to be given away. These were the men who never, on any other occasion, attended to their duties, or took any part in the ordinary business of the Poor Law Board. He therefore maintained that, as the question of valuation in Ireland was to be dealt with, and as this Bill would be quoted as a precedent, Irish Members, were entitled to insist, and justified in insisting, that their views should be heard in this matter.

said, it was greatly to be regretted that the administration of the two countries could not go on independently, because it must be exceedingly inconvenient to Englishmen that these Irish views should be imported into English discussions. It was quite recently that these views had been offered in such debates, and Irish Members might be right or wrong in interposing; but their view was, that they were coerced into doing so by finding that when an Irish Bill was brought before the House on the lines of an English measure no explanation of it could be elicited, excepting that its principles had already been decided in the case of an English Bill, and that it would be waste of time to discuss it. With a certain Resolution looming in the distance, it was very easy to foresee that when the Irish measure came on these charges of waste of time would be likely to be renewed. His experience in Poor Law Boards with ex-officio guardians for some years past had been such as to bring him to that House determined to do all he could to defeat this ex-officio principle in connection with Poor Law amendment. He should like to have a Parliamentary Return showing the attendance of the ex-officio guardians at the ordinary meetings of those Boards, and their attendance when there were situations to be given away. It would be found that the ex-officio guardians left the business of the union almost entirely to the elected guardians, excepting when there was a dispensary directorship, or some other place, to dispose of. He spoke only of the parts of Ireland which he knew. If there were unions differently circumstanced, they were fortunate. The country would bear with the Irish Members, if, smarting under this sense of difficulty, they asked the Committee to put some limit to the possible ex-officio element in the case under consideration. The ex-officio guardians had a double advantage, which he would always protest against in that House—that they were allowed to vote as ratepayers for elected guardians, and they were allowed to come into the Board afterwards by virtue of their office.

thought the Amendment a reasonable one. He could corroborate, from experience in the county in which he resided, the statements of the Irish Members who had spoken. The appointment of the magistracy was not always satisfactory—for, given the opinions of the Lords Lieutenants, and they had the opinions of the majority of the magistracy. In the county of Hereford, where he lived, one in four of the magistrates were clergymen, and yet not a single Nonconformist sat on the bench. The attendance at assessment committees of ex-officio guardians had been most irregular in that county; but they invariably attended when appointments were made. The ordinary business was left to the elected guardians, who discharged it with a great deal of care.

said, that with regard to the statement just made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake), as to the non-existence in the county of Hereford of any magistrates who were Dissenters, he was not prepared to state the exact facts of the case; but he knew that there were two sides to the question. This was evidenced by the fact that an animated correspondence on the subject was carried on, from time to time, in the local newspapers, and especially in that journal which the hon. Gentleman favoured with his own communications. If the remarks of the hon. Member were intended as a reflection upon the impartiality of the Lord Lieutenant of Herefordshire, all he could say was, that they were most uncalled for. He believed that the noble Lord who at present occupied that distinguished position administered his patronage in as disinterested a manner as any man could exercise it.

said, the very fact that the ex-officio guardians left the work to be done by the elective guardians was one of the best proofs of the fitness and efficiency of the latter body of gentlemen. It would be invidious to point out any particular county in Ireland where ex-officio guardians neglected their duties; but he was bound to add his testimony to the fact, that guardians acting in that capacity were only present at meetings of the Poor Law Board when some situation was to be given away, when the candidates comprised persons of their own way of thinking in politics and religion.

said, there could be no doubt that this was a very important question. Either the relations of the English farmer to the magistrates of counties and the proprietors of land were the same as in Ireland, or they were not. If they were the same as in Ireland, he could not understand why the Government should insist upon continuing to protect a class that now enjoyed protection, while not sufficiently protecting another class whose requirements in that direction were obvious. But if the relations in the two countries were not alike, great care should be taken before acting upon the principle, that what was not considered necessary for England was not really necessary for Ireland.

regarded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as a very harmless one; but he did not think it was necessary to press it. At the same time, there could be no doubt that while, on the one hand, there was often considerable difficulty at present in getting a sufficient number of ex-officio guardians to serve, there might, on the other hand, be many men in a district well qualified to act in that capacity; and the specification in the Bill of a particular number might not be without its effect.

said, he did not regard this matter from an Irish point of view merely, but from the point of view of one who was, for the most part, a resident in England, and who understood something of England as well as of Ireland. Looking at the question in that light, it seemed to him that the proposition of the Government was obviously unfair. Under the clause, as it stood, if one-third ex-officios were willing to serve, no matter how small might be their qualification or personal fitness, there was nothing to prevent them doing so. Nor was it provided against, that they might not flood and outweigh the other guardians. This, he thought, was altogether wrong, and contrary to his sense of justice and of fair play. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) had pointed out some circumstances which ought, certainly, to attract the attention of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that there was not a single Nonconformist in Herefordshire who was an ex-officio magistrate, while one-fourth of all the magistrates in the county were clergymen. Was that a fair constituency from which to draw the assessment committee? He hoped that the President of the Local Government Board, whose fairness and whose readiness to meet any reasonable objection he cheerfully acknowledged, would agree to the Amendment. Hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in its favour; and he trusted that the Representatives of some other English constituencies would find voice on the subject, and thereby, perhaps, save the Committee from the necessity of a division.

said, he regarded the Amendment as a very fair one, and hoped it might be allowed to pass.

said, he also looked upon the Amendment as very reasonable. As the clause in the Bill was drawn it was hardly fair, and he urged the Government to place elected guardians in the same position as ex-officio guardians. If a provision were inserted for that purpose, a division might be saved, and the measure might be got through that afternoon.

said, he had no doubt whatever that the clause, as it stood, would give the greatest dissatisfaction to all Boards of Guardians throughout the country. It would be possible under it to elect in some places ex-officio guardians only. With reference to what had been said in regard to his remarks about Hereford, the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Arburthnot) had informed the Committee that he spoke on that subject without knowledge. He (Mr. Blake) did not, however, speak without knowledge. The point to which he had directed attention with respect to the county of Hereford was one which vitally concerned the administration of justice in the counties generally; and last year he moved for a Return of those gentlemen who were on the commission of the peace for Hereford. That Return might be seen in the Library by any hon. Member, and it would be found from it that what he had stated was absolutely correct—that there was not a single Protestant Nonconformist upon the commission of the county of which he was speaking, while one-fourth of the magistrates were clergymen of the Church of England. He had nothing to say against the Lord Lieutenant of Hereford; but it appeared to some of those whose eyes were not blinded by political prejudice that this was not altogether fair or as it should be.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had spoken of the dissatisfaction which the passing of the clause would create throughout the country, appeared to be utterly ignorant of the fact that what that clause embodied was the law at the present moment; and he did not know whether any other hon. Member of the House had received evidence of the existence of wide-spread discontent in consequence. For himself, he had had a good many representations on various points in the Bill from Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis; but he had not received a single objection to the existing state of the law as regarded ex-officio guardians.

said, the law at the present moment might be what the hon. Member had just indicated; but in this matter, the endeavour of the Committee ought not to be to patch up old laws, but to guard against a great and revolutionary change in connection with the valuation of property.

appealed to the Government as to whether it was necessary to occupy so much time with the discussion of a proposition which was in itself so reasonable as that of the hon. Member for Cavan? From his own experience as an ex-officio guardian, and as the chairman of an assessment committee, he did not think that the passing of the Amendment would be attended with any danger. On the contrary, he thought that it would be only fair and right.

said, he looked upon his Amendment as so fair and reasonable that he hardly thought the Committee would have taken the trouble to discuss the question at all. He had been mistaken, however, and the matter had given rise to some debate. Several arguments had been put forward against his proposition. It had been said that he did not know the quality of those who were elected ex-officio guardians in England; but he thought that the observations of English Members themselves on the subject showed that he had made out a sufficiently good case. He could tell hon. Members, who appeared to think he could not do so, what an ex-officio guardian really was in Ireland and in England. He was a magistrate for the sake of having the power of whitewashing public officials in the Poor Law Board. He got himself made an ex-officio guardian; but so far as the ordinary work and duty of a Poor Law guardian were concerned, he did absolutely nothing. The real work was done by the elective members, who were well entitled to be upon the assessment committee, and to receive any honour which might attach to that position. It had also been said that there was no necessity for the Amendment, because, in point of fact, the ex-officio guardians were useless, and it would be difficult to get even one-third of them to perform the necessary duties. If that were so, on what ground could there be any objection to the number of these guardians being limited?

said, he had supported the clause as it stood, on the ground that it was a consolidation of the existing law; but he must candidly state that, in doing so, he had been influenced by a desire that progress should be made with the measure. After the discussion, however, which had just taken place, he put it to his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the interest of "progress," he should not concede to an Amendment which was in itself of a harmless character?

said, he had no objection whatever to this Amendment.

said, it might happen that the clerk of the union had already a great deal of business on his hands. He might also be clerk of the education committee, of the sanitary committee, and of other committees. Therefore, he thought it ought not to be compulsory on the assessment committee to employ the clerk of the union as their clerk if they should think it advisable not to do so. Possibly, good reasons might exist for not employing him in that capacity. He trusted his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment, which he now begged to move—namely, to leave out, in page 2, line 15, after the word "guardians," the words "or if he is not willing to serve."

said, the object of the words in the clause was to avoid the multiplication of officers in the union. The same policy had been pursued in the Education Act and other measures. In all these instances the object in view had been to avoid the needless multiplication of officers. He thought it was only right to point out these precedents to the Committee. He supposed that the working of these assessment arrangements and of this valuation system would depend more on the 650 clerks to the guardians than on any other 650 individuals in the Kingdom.

agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that it was not desirable to increase the number of officers in the union; but he desired to point out that the Amendment provided an escape from a very uncomfortable and disadvantageous state of things, which, if the clause were carried in its present form, must be continued. In some country districts, and in some towns, there were bad clerks, who not unfrequently employed good assistant clerks; and the Amendment just moved by his hon. and gallant Friend would enable the assessment committees to appoint the good assistant clerks, if they desired to do so. Such appointments would be serviceable to the county, and they might also stimulate somewhat lethargic clerks to do their duty.

thought the last speaker had adduced a good reason for retaining in the clause the words he proposed to omit. Surely they ought not to enable Boards of Guardians to retain bad clerks in their employment? It seemed to him that the main object which the President of the Local Government Board had in view was a good one—namely, to avoid the multiplication of officers. If a Board of Guardians happened to have an inefficient clerk, the sooner they got rid of him the better. He suspected that if the truth were known, it would be found that very often Boards of Guardians were controlled by the Local Government Board in this matter, and that they experienced a difficulty in dismissing an inefficient clerk, because they could not obtain the consent of the Department. He was of opinion that the clerk to the guardians ought to be the best man to act as the clerk to the assessment committee.

observed, that although the clerk to the guardians might possess great experience, yet he might be a man of advanced years, and unable, consequently, to take upon himself the discharge of another and an arduous duty. It might be a question, not of getting rid of a bad clerk, but of imposing fresh duties on a man who already had sufficient to do, and could not undertake to do more.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, or expect that a debate should be raised upon the present occasion on the question which it involved, and which was, no doubt, an important and interesting one. He would point out, that if hereafter it should be thought desirable to adopt the views of the hon. Gentleman, that could be done on the Report.

was sorry he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. This was the means by which the valuation lists were made accessible to the whole of the ratepayers of the Kingdom.

said, that the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper to this clause had reference to a new clause which he would bring forward later on; but it would be necessary for him now to say a word or two with respect to the latter. The Amendment he proposed to move was at page 3, in line 9, after the word "duplicate," to insert "and any special valuation made by the assessor of railways and canals." This was an officer who was not mentioned in the Bill as at present drawn. He was one, however, that he (Mr. Pell) ventured to ask the Committee to introduce, and his reason for doing so was this. Under the present law, which was continued by this Bill, the overseers of parishes, who, without saying anything uncomplimentary to them, must be considered as entirely incompetent to discharge such duties, were left to insert in the valuation lists what they considered to be the value of so much of a railway or canal as lay within their parishes. Let them do their best, and yet the figures which they filled in were very likely to be unsatisfactory, and, in fact, they were frequently, if not generally, found to be unsatisfactory. The result of this was, that the counties, parishes, and unions were put to enormous expense by exceptional valuations made by experts on behalf of the ratepayers, of which he had a remarkable illustration in his mind at the present moment. In order to obviate this difficulty, and also to ensure something like uniformity in the valuing of railways and canals in the first instance, he had attempted to provide, by a new clause in the Bill, for the appointment of a special assessor, whose duty it should be to inquire into the value of railway and canal property within a county or a parish, as the case might be, and to send to the overseers in such form as the Local Government Board might, from time to time direct what he considered to be the value of the railway or canal hereditaments within the parish. The overseers should then insert the sum in their valuation lists, and this assessor of railways would retire and be heard of no more. A railway or canal company, who might consider the assessment too high, would be at liberty to appeal under the regular provisions of this Bill. An appeal would likewise be open to any other ratepayer. There was another reason why he made this proposal, which he should like to state to the Committee. The method in which, as he understood it, railways were assessed in Scotland was to allow one officer, aided by his subalterns, to assess them for the whole of the Kingdom. He did not propose to lay before the Committee any scheme as large as that for England, which had a vastly larger network of railways, and, consequently, much more numerous hereditaments. But he asked that there should be applied in counties in England the same principle that was applied to the whole of Scotland, where in the assessment of railways and canals it had been found to work satisfactorily. Seeing that that principle had received the assent of Parliament, and of that highly intelligent nation, he ventured to say that it required no special recommendation from him in its support. What he asked was, that the same system should be applied in the counties by a county officer, appointed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that he should do for the county what the Scotch officer did for the whole of that Kingdom. He believed that, as a rule, railways were assessed at too low a figure, except those valued under the Scotch Act. There the whole value of the undertaking, from one end of the system to the other, was taken in view by the valuer. Similarly, a valuer under his proposal would have to consider what was the value of, say, the Great Western system within a county, and he would then in the parishes fix the value at which he thought that railway should be assessed in respect of the length of line which it had inside those parishes. Those who defended the present system in England might say that that could be done already, and that any parish or union might call in a special valuer, who should say what he considered to be the value of the railway system within that union. But let the Committee observe that that valuer would have to consider the value of the whole of that railway system, not only throughout the county, but beyond it, in order to arrive at the value to be inserted in the valuation list for anyone particular parish or union with which he was dealing. In fact, he would have to do nearly as much work for one union or parish as he would have if he had to fix the valuation in respect of all the railways and canals within the county. Therefore, upon the score of labour as well as that of efficiency and justice, he had ventured to put down the new clause, which would be found at the end of the Paper of Amendments. But in order to give effect to that clause, he was obliged to move the Amendment which they were now considering. He was sorry to say that he had not had time to confer with the President of the Local Government Board on the subject. Little time had been allowed them to prepare Amendments. The present had been a difficult one for him to prepare almost unaided; he had done his best, and he now presented it for the consideration of the Committee.

said, he was very far from disputing the importance of the object which his hon. Friend had in view, and, indeed, it had been brought to his notice by different railway companies themselves a few days ago. But he thought his hon. Friend had really answered himself in recommending this particular plan; because, while expressing a wish to adopt the Scotch system he, in the same breath, said that he intended that the valuation should be by separate counties. Therefore, the railway companies would be no better off under this valuation by separate counties than they were under the existing law, where the valuation was made by a union. It would still remain as now pretty much a matter of guesswork. He was himself very much in favour of the valuation of railway property in the direction indicated by his hon. Friend, but the question was very far from being ripe for decision by that House. Undoubtedly, it would be a most serious thing to adopt an Amendment of this nature at a moment's notice, and he did not think his hon. Friend's plan would answer for the reason he had stated. He trusted that the Committee might not be led away into a discussion of this question; because, under the clause as it stood, the parishes secured the valuation of the railway companies within their respective limits, and the unions found little or no difficulty in assessing them and recovering the rates. He had already intimated his wish that the question of the valuation of railway property should be considered separately, as soon as an opportunity could be afforded for that purpose.

should like to make one or two observations on the remarks which had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board. He had admitted very distinctly that at present the assessment of railway property was a matter of guesswork, and he (Mr. Pell) thought that admission furnished a sufficient reason for the Amendment which he had moved. Let the Committee consider what he proposed. It was that instead of a surveyor or overseer in a parish putting down, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own expression, by guesswork, what he considered to be the value of a railway, he should be assisted by an officer for the whole of the county, who should suggest to him, not something that should be the result of guesswork, but something that should rest on reasonable inquiry and practical experience. That was all that his Amendment proposed should be done. Having assisted the overseer by his experience and knowledge, the assessor would then retire from the scene altogether. Might he lay before the Committee an instance in point. The Eastern Counties Railway had been assessed under this system of guesswork for some years in one union at the low rate of £8,000, and some odd hundred pounds. He had no interest in that union, and he was only speaking now of something which had been brought under his notice. That union, not having the advantage of the services of such an officer as he suggested, called in an expert whom, no doubt, it employed at great expense. The result of the introduction of the expert was that the Great Eastern Railway Company was assessed in the sum of £25,000, and they submitted to that assessment. That was three times the amount which the overseer by their guesswork, and the assessment committee, owing to their want of information, had allowed to remain on the valuation list for many years. In an adjoining union the same expensive process had to be gone through with very nearly the same result with respect to the same railway. He thought that when they were asked to pass a Valuation Bill, which dealt not only with all the rateable property in the Kingdom but with their taxes as well, it was a serious and grave omission on the part of a public Department not to have provided something at least better than guesswork. He regretted that it had been left to a private Member, who had not at his command either the time, or the ability, or the assistance possessed by a great Department, to provide a reasonable substitute for a system which the President of the Local Government Board himself had termed as nothing better than guesswork.

said, he must correct an erroneous expression which had been attributed to him. He did not say that all railways were assessed by guesswork; he said that the sum which railways were sometimes charged beyond that which they had previously been accustomed to pay had been arrived at by guesswork, and that on appeal it had been disallowed. But, speaking generally, he thought that railways were assessed in such a manner that the parishes got a reasonable contribution from them; and he must say that if the railway companies were dissatisfied with the present system they were quite capable of taking care of themselves. He repeated that the subject was under consideration; and he did not feel bound to do more than to re-enact the existing law which had hitherto been found applicable to railway property.

remarked, that as his right hon. Friend held out a prospect of a full consideration of the subject of railway assessment, he was unwilling to occupy the time of the Committee. At the same time, when his right hon. Friend talked so glibly of the assessment of railway companies, and their being able to take care of themselves, he could not forbear from stating that he did not think there was a more iniquitous system of rating in the world than the manner in which railway property was assessed, because they went on to arrive, by whatever calculation they pleased, at what was the amount which the railway company was earning, and they then assessed the trade. They did not deal with any other trade in the same way. The way in which they assessed railways was as if they went to a great brewer, or banker, or any other large trader, and assessed, not the value of his premises, but the value of his business. That was what they did with regard to railways, and they inflicted a great injustice upon railway proprietors which they did not inflict upon any other class of the community. They must remember, too, that railway companies were not great and rich corporations, but that their taxation diminished the dividend of the shareholders—that was to say, it fell upon the investors in one particular form of security, many of whom were poor men. Moreover, everything which they took out of the railway operated to the disadvantage of the travelling public. It was one of the greatest anomalies that existed. He believed that a railway which ran through a parish conferred a great benefit upon it, and yet, instead of considering it as they considered other property, which they valued according to the rate at which it might be expected to let from year to year, they assessed it somewhat after the manner he had described; and, in fact, they assessed the rolling-stock—the engines and carriages which earned the money, which was precisely the same thing as taxing the stock-in-trade of any great trader. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was going to press his Amendment to a division. His experience of Amendments proposed by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the Conservative side of the House was that they were supported by very clear and practical arguments, and then generally withdrawn, unless a division was forced from that—the Liberal—side. As far as he was concerned, he must enter his protest against the iniquitous system of railway assessment which at present existed, and if there were to be any alteration in the present Bill, he would rather have that assessment, bad as it was, conducted upon tolerably equitable principles by some competent person, than upon what the right hon. Gentleman had described as being guesswork. He could not conceive that in attempting to settle the principles upon which the valuation of property throughout the country should be carried on, and therein dealing with railway property throughout the country, it was creditable on the part of a Minister, in the conduct of such a Bill, deliberately to propose to inflict upon the country the continuance of that which he acknowledged to be a system of guesswork.

protested against the language of the right hon. Gentleman, who had made himself the champion of the railway companies. Really the latter were able to take care of themselves; and having been recently in communication with them he thought he might claim to know a great deal more about this matter than the right hon. Gentleman himself.

said, he was bound to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had met the railway companies in a very fair and candid manner, and, as a result of their meeting, it was their intention at a particular stage of the Bill to move certain Amendments. Not knowing that the Bill would be brought on so soon, they had not been able in time to put those Amendments on the Paper. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had given the Committee an instance of what took place under the present system. Let him give an instance, rather on the contrary side, of what now took place. In the Northern parts of England this happened. In one parish the rateability of the railway was £24,000 a-year, and the company paid on that sum for several years. They thought it high, but did not think it worth while to go to the expense of an appeal. Well, an expert was introduced—a gentleman who was known to very many in that House. He was called in by the assessment committee to advise them, and he raised the rate from £24,000 a-year for that one parish to £34,000. The railway company said—"This is rather too hard; we are not going to pay this;" and they appealed to the Quarter Sessions. The result of the appeal to that tribunal was, that they sent the case to an umpire to inquire into the whole of the circumstances. That occupied a very considerable time; and, in the result, instead of £34,000 a-year being confirmed, the umpire reduced the original rating of 24,000 a-year by £1,000, and put the rating at £23,000, and ordered the parish to pay the whole of the costs of that appeal. But, in the end, where was the railway company? The railway company succeeded; but, although the parish had to pay a portion of the costs, the arbitrator felt bound in the circumstances to give them two years in which to pay them, and, as a consequence, the railway company had to pay two-thirds of the joint costs of themselves and of the parish. Now, the hon. Member who sat near him had a very similar case to deal with. It appeared that the Great Western Railway Company and the London and North-Western Railway Company were the joint owners of a railway in Cheshire, and that the valuation of that line was raised from £30,000 or £40,000 to £60,000. The railway companies appealed against this increase in the assessment of their line, and the end of it was that the valuation was reduced to £30,000; but they had a very large portion of the expenses to pay. What the railway companies wanted—and what he believed they would get from the present Government—was a remedy for this state of things, to be provided in the subsequent clauses of this Bill. The experts who, under the present system, were employed in the valuation of the property of the railway companies, were actually interested in raising the amount of the valuation. As far as railway property was concerned, it was a rare thing to hear of the valuation being reduced in amount. The expert had every interest in increasing the amount of the valuation, inasmuch as he was actually paid a percentage on the amount to which he could raise the rate. The consequence was, that the railway companies were treated with the greatest possible injustice under the present system of valuation and assessment. The hon. Member had proposed to leave it to the magistrates assembled in Quarter Session to appoint experts to assist the assessment committee in making re-valuations.

explained, that the language of his Amendment was "unless Parliament should otherwise provide."

continued, that although he had every respect for the Courts of Quarter Sessions, he felt bound to say that he scarcely thought that those Courts could be looked upon as impartial tribunals, inasmuch as magistrates, especially in agricultural districts, were largely interested in the amount that could be got out of the parish and the ratepayers, in relief of their own tenants the farmers. They, therefore, scarcely formed a desirable tribunal for selecting the experts by whom the amount of the assessment was to be made. Under Clause 48, power to deal with this question was given to the Local Government Board, and when that clause came on for discussion those who were interested in the subject would propose the Amendments in it they thought necessary. In their opinion, it would be preferable if the expert who was to determine the amount of the assessment were to be appointed by that Board. The best thing that hon. Members could do to protect the railway companies in this matter was to take care that those who made these valuations had not a direct interest in raising the amount of the assessments as against the railway companies. He had already stated his belief that the best tribunal for appointing these experts was the Local Government Board itself; and if Parliament adopted that view they would have impartial assessors appointed all over the country, who would be paid a fixed salary instead of a percentage on the amount to which they raised the valuation of the railway companies' property. In almost every township the railway companies paid a large proportion of the rates, and it was the interest of the parish to take as large an amount out of their pockets as they could. If the hon. Member would adopt the suggestions which had been made at the interview which they had had with the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, he believed that the justice of the case would be met. The hon. Member would have a further opportunity of raising this question on the subsequent clauses, and he was sure that eventually justice would be done to the railway companies in this matter, which was all that they desired.

said, that they were all agreed that the hon. Member was quite justified in bringing this subject before the Committee by this particular Amendment, because he had shown the necessity of something being done in the matter. It might be perfectly true that railway companies generally could take care of themselves; but in many instances they were rated at loss than the proper amount. The rating at the lower assessment continued from year to year, and there was great difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. The country at large was much interested in the subject of railway rating, and anything that the Government or the Committee could do to set this question at rest would be valuable work done. At the same time, he hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in this particular Amendment, but would withdraw it. It raised the very large question of principle as to whether the railways were properly rated or not, which, if entered into thoroughly, would occupy the attention of the Committee for a very long time. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would be content with having raised the question, and would postpone any further action in the matter until Clause 48 came on for discussion.

thought that the subject was one which well merited the attention and the careful consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed to deprecate discussion on the matter. He had noticed on several occasions that a considerable amount of pressure had been made use of from the Treasury Bench in order to prevent the proper discussion of this Bill, which was put forward, not as a measure introduced with the view of bringing the matters it dealt with to a final conclusion, but as one full of temporary expedients. The fact was, that they were now dealing with one of the most important questions that could occupy the attention of the House of Commons. The assessment of railway and canal property raised a very large question. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the subject was now involved in great confusion, and required dealing with; but he had understood him to intimate that he did not intend to deal with it permanently by this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) was more sanguine than the right hon. Gentleman. He told them of a meeting that had been held representing important interests. The hon. and learned Member was a man of sound judgment, and he had taken the measure so far of the Local Government Board as to be able to state that he believed that that Board would be willing to accept Amendments to this Bill in the interests of the railway companies. He, however, did not stand there in the interests of the railway companies which, as a general rule, managed to take pretty good care of themselves. What the Committee was trying to do was to get a basis of valuation of all property not in the interests of the railway companies but of the ratepayers generally. He had already frequently contended in that House that they ought to depend more and more upon the assessment committees; and by giving them greater powers and better means of arriving at a conclusion with respect to the amount of the assessment, they would get rid of a great deal of the difficulty that was felt under the present system. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had suggested one way out of that difficulty. But another way out of it had been put forward by the very important deputation which had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and had pointed out to him that those who had to assess railway and canal property were placed in a great difficulty by the companies refusing to give the necessary amount of information to enable a proper valuation to be placed upon their property. If the necessary information were placed before those who had to make a valuation of the railway companies' property, there would be no difficulty whatever in making a fair assessment; but the railway companies made it a rule to give no information whatever to the assessment committees. The consequence was, that the assessment committees were obliged to put the assessment as high as possible, in order to force the railway companies to appeal, and compel them to give that information which otherwise they would refuse to give. It would save much time, if the Government would let the Committee know what proposal they had to make upon this part of the Bill.

said, he did not consider it to be his duty, in the interest of the ratepayers, to propose any variation on the existing law governing the assessment of the property of railway companies in the Bill now before the Committee. Those who represented the railway companies in that Committee said that the companies were afraid that the result of this measure would be that they would in the course of time be placed in a worse position than they now occupied. If that were so, he should be happy to do all in his power to relieve them from injustice. It was not his wish or desire that the companies should be placed in a worse position, and he would willingly support any Amendment which would have the effect of preventing them being prejudiced by the operation of this Bill. It had been suggested that by some modification of the Scotch system a fairer mode of valuation of railway property might be arrived at, both in the interest of the companies and of the ratepayers. The Scotch system was a totally different one from their own, and it would be inconvenient at the present time to discuss that question, inasmuch as it would occasion delay, and would carry the Committee away from the real point they had to determine. It was a question worthy of consideration, whether or not the Railway Commissioners might not be empowered to try questions of appeal connected with the rating of railways. He merely threw that out as a suggestion, without wishing to raise a discussion upon the matter. In his opinion, the question before the Committee was not one that would come within the general valuation law, it relating to a particular mode of assessing particular property. He put it to the Committee, whether they would be inclined to give their assent to the introduction into this general Valuation Bill of any special mode of assessing different classes of property? If the matter were brought forward in a special Rating Bill, he thought that the point was one which might be very fairly considered by a Select Committee.

hoped that the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would not press his Amendment, because the point it raised would properly come before the Committee when a subsequent clause came on for discussion.

ventured to point out to the hon. Member that, under the present system, the magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled had the power of appointing a valuer to fix the assessment of railway and other properties within the county. That course was adopted in the county which he represented—Hereford—with the result of largely increasing the nominal rateable value of railway property throughout the county. The effect of the Amendment would be to add an unnecessary officer to those forming the machinery by which this Bill was to be worked; and he did not think it desirable that such a step should be taken. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire would tend to secure for the railways the justice to which they were entitled. He thought that the Committee should hesitate before asking the hon. Member for Leicestershire to withdraw an Amendment of this kind, which was calculated to bring about that uniformity in the system of rating of all property throughout Great Britain which the right hon. Gentleman himself desired to see established. He hoped that the Committee would take into consideration the possibility of adopting the Scotch system.

said, that he could not agree in the statement that railway companies had always been hardly treated in the matter of the assessment of their property for the purposes of rating. But, whether that were the case or not, he could say that they had been most unequally treated. In East Anglia some railways paid scarcely a larger assessment than their land would have to pay if there were not a railway upon it. In his own union there had been a considerable increase made in the assessment of the railway property—namely, from £3,000 to £13,000. Contesting the amount of the valuation might be very good for the unions, but it was very bad for the parishes, because the latter had to pay the whole costs of the proceedings, although they only got a proportionate part of the value of the new assessment. This question with regard to railways showed how difficult it was to run a Bill of this kind through the House in a few nights. If they were going to have a Valuation Bill at all, let them have a good one and a thorough one. Seeing that the amount of railway property throughout the Kingdom was so enormous, and that it contributed so largely towards the rates, something at least should be done with the view of making its assessment equitable.

said, that the assessment of railway property in this country was a very large and important matter, seeing that the value of that property amounted to something like £600,000,000 or £700,000,000. One of the difficulties was, that this railway property was assessed in a haphazard way. This was a most unfortunate fact. It was said that railways could take care of themselves; but it was not desirable that they should take care of themselves; at least it was not desirable that they should take care of themselves at the expense of others. He hoped that when the 48th clause came under discussion the right hon. Gentleman would put forward some view on the part of the Government as to the way in which this question should be settled, so as to enable the Committee to arrive at some more equitable mode of assessment of this property than the one adopted under the present system. Some independent authority should be appointed to settle its value on sound and satisfactory principles.

thought that the Bill would be incomplete unless it contained some provision for the special assessment of railway property. This was a very important matter, because no class of property was so difficult to value as railway property. The assessment of railway property in Herefordshire had been considerably increased of late, and in every case that increase had been assented to by the companies. He hoped that the hon. Member would persevere with his Amendment.

observed, that the question raised by the Amendment would come before the Committee in a more convenient form when Clause 48 came to be discussed, as at present it was consequential to another Amendment not yet brought forward, and then they should hear in all probability the view of the Government upon the whole question of rating railways. It was quite impossible to discuss the question at that stage. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, on the understanding that the entire question should be raised on the subsequent clause.

entirely agreed in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman; but he hoped that if it were accepted, the clause would be postponed. Before he sat down, he wished to state one or two other very strong reasons why his Amendment, or something like it, should be adopted. On the whole, he concurred with the course which had been taken by the Government in making the surveyor of taxes the dominant power with regard to assessments. That official was introduced into the Bill with considerable power, and with the view that his appearance should have effect in determining what the gross value of properties was to be; but it seemed to be forgotten that these gentlemen would have no place in settling the valuation of railways, such property having been taken out of Schedule A and included in Schedule D. It therefore followed that the surveyors of taxes would have a lively interest in seeing that all hereditaments, except railways and canals, were equitably and properly assessed. They had no interest whatever in the assessment of railways. This, he thought, afforded a very strong reason for inserting in the Bill some such provision as was contained in the Amendment which he had ventured to put upon the Paper. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman)—than whom no one in the House was so thoroughly acquainted with every detail of this subject—had told the Committee that under the present system, the valuers who acted for assessment committees with regard to railways were paid for their services by a percentage upon the amount at which they succeeded in fixing the assessment, and were, therefore, always open to the unwholesome influence which such a mode of payment of necessity involved. This was another and a very good reason for the hon. and learned Member—if he wanted one—to support the Amendment before the Committee. If his Amendment were accepted, the county authority, as at present constituted, or the County Government Board, as he hoped it would be at no distant day, would appoint an independent officer, whose income and financial position would not depend upon his fixing the railway assessments at a high amount, but who would be paid by salary, and would have no interest adverse to fixing the assessments of all property on a perfectly fair and equitable basis. He wished to point out that the valuation of this assessor was not necessarily to be conclusive. His duty would be to inform the overseers as to the amount which, in his opinion, ought to be put down in the rate-books as the assessment of each separate piece of property. Having done this, he retired altogether, and the railway or canal companies would have the same right of appeal that was possessed by private persons who thought their assessments too high. But there would be this undoubted advantage from such a system, that it would ensure an uniform and reasonable mode of assessment of railway and land property. Let the Committee consider for a moment what they were doing in this matter. He had not had time at present to get out the figures on the subject—he hoped to be able to do so before the Bill left the House—but the value of the railway property in the country which was assessed to the rates was without question something enormous. He did not know that he should be far wrong in putting it at a twentieth part of the whole property in the country. [No, no!] Well, at any rate, it was an enormous amount, and what had Parliament ever done with regard to the rating of railroads? During the time which had elapsed between the birth of Stephenson and the present day, he was not aware that any Government, of any shade of politics, had ever given any consideration whatever to this question, or had taken the trouble of introducing a Bill with respect to the valuation of railways in England. It had been done in Scotland; and what he was now attempting to do was to introduce, in a modified form, the Scotch system, which had been found to work well, into this country. He should not withdraw his Amendment, but should divide upon it, and so prove himself an exception to the rule with regard to agricultural Members which was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), that was to say he should certainly divide, unless he got an assurance from the Government that the clause which he proposed to amend would be postponed, or that, at any rate the question to which it referred would be considered further on. The House was not going to get through this Bill in a day, and there would be plenty of time for Her Majesty's Government to consider the whole matter. He could not, therefore, give way, unless it was made clear to him that before the Bill left the Committee he could bring his Amendment forward again in such a manner as that he would not be prejudiced by anything that might be done to-day. He should certainly bring forward on a future occasion either the same clause which he had now moved or another and better one, which he would ask a professional draftsman to prepare for him.

said, that when he came into the House a short time previously he heard the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) speaking of the vicious system of employing valuers who were paid by percentage, instead of by salary. This practice could not possibly be too strongly condemned, nor could the House be put too much upon its guard against it. The hon. and learned Member mentioned one or two cases in order to show how unjustly the system had worked with regard to railways. Perhaps he might be allowed to mention a case in which it had an equally unjust result as far as a property of another kind was concerned. There was within his knowledge a case in which a county committee employed a valuer from another part of the country to re-value the properties in the county for rating purposes. This gentleman was to be paid by a percentage on the valuation, and in one case he raised the valuation of a mining property in the county to something like £13,000. The owners of the property objected, as a matter of course, to the valuation, and an appeal was at once made to the Court of Quarter Sessions. In the end a compromise was effected, and he believed the assessment was fixed at about £1,300. If he were not out of Order in using the phrase, he should say that the attempt made to put up the assessment of the works was but little short of an attempt at robbery. This circumstance, he thought, illustrated the value of a system which regulated the payment by results of a valuer, who would only be interested in fixing the assessment at as high an amount as possible.

said, that at the risk of being supposed to advise the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment not to stick to his colours, he must be permitted to give his opinion for whatever it was worth. He certainly thought the hon. Member would not act wisely in pressing his Amendment, and he thought this entirely from the point of view of the hon. Member. He entirely agreed with him, and with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. Leeman) in thinking that the present mode of assessing railways was not fair to the undertakings assessed. He also thought the time had come at which the fair and equal assessment of railway property ought to be undertaken and dealt with; but he did not think the hon. Member would advance that object by pressing to a division the Amendment which he had moved. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had stated, the Committee was now inclining itself towards a division, or, at any rate, towards concluding this discussion; and no one could say that the subject matter of the Amendment had been, or could be, considered or settled in the course of a debate on the consequential Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Gentleman. It was a very well understood practice in the House that it was fair to those hon. Members who proposed considerable changes or Amendments in Bills to postpone the consideration of the points proposed to be changed or amended until there was a full opportunity for their thorough discussion, after the proposals for change had been matured. It must also be known that it was the ordinary practice of the House to re-commit Bills, where necessary, for the consideration of merely consequential Amendments. Another reason in favour of the suggestion he had made to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pell) was that if he persisted, after this partial statement of the reasons in favour of his Amendment, and this partial discussion of those reasons, in going to a division, and if he were beaten upon such division, it would tell against him when he brought up his new clause; because although the division would be taken upon a more or less consequential Amendment, it would lead to some extent, in some minds, to the conclusion that the Committee had determined not at any future time to accept the Amendment. If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman did not divide, and so provoke a hostile decision upon his present proposal, he would be at perfect liberty to propose his new clause on a future occasion; and if that clause were adopted, the Bill could be re-committed for the insertion of consequential Amendments.

said, he saw no reason why the clause to which his hon. Friend had proposed an Amendment should be postponed. He was strongly of opinion that the question of the valuation of railways was far too large a one to be dealt with by means of a clause in the present Bill; but, if on further consideration, it should be found practicable to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, he would undertake that no objection to its adoption should arise by reason of the withdrawal of the Amendment. The hon. Member would be perfectly unfettered as to future action in reference to his proposal if he withdrew it at the present juncture, and brought it forward hereafter.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) would not press his Amendment at the present time, as the Committee was not in possession of the information which would be necessary to a proper settlement of the question, which would introduce an altogether new principle into the Bill.

said, that if the Amendment were to be withdrawn, he would suggest to the hon. Member who had charge of it, that before bringing it forward again, he should consider whether the power he desiderated should not be given to the assessment committee for the county, who would be by far the best authority for settling the question of railway assessments.

said, that after the kind offer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he should not press his Amendment to a division.

said, he had no objection to the elimination of those words.

said, the Amendment was unnecessary. The Act of 1864 had already provided that whenever it was proposed to increase an assessment, notice should be given to the persons assessed, whether they were public companies or private individuals; and he presumed that where there was no intention to increase, no notice would be either desired or required; but, if the Amendment were agreed to, it would become necessary to give notice at each assessment, whether the amount were increase or not.

said, the Government had deliberately arrived at the conclusion that the words which it was proposed to strike out were the best which could be adopted in the clause. If, however, upon further inquiry, his hon. and gallant Friend should be of opinion that they did not meet the case fairly, he should be happy to confer with him on the subject.

expressed his regret that he could not comply with the wish of his hon. and gallant Friend.

pointed out that the Amendment was not quite germane to the subject-matter of the clause, and that it would be better if it were brought up in the shape of a new clause.

said, he would, of course, at once bow to the ruling of the Chairman, and would embody his Amendment in a new clause, which he would move at a subsequent stage of the discussions in Committee on the Bill.

expressed his concurrence in the ruling of the Chairman, that the Amendment was not relevant to the subject-matter of the clause.

said, he believed his hon. Friend would find that Clause 16 met the case so fully, that he would not deem it necessary to insist on the insertion in the Bill of the words which he proposed.

, referring to a series of Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name, said, the first of them raised a very important question. His object was to secure, as far as possible, uniformity in the county valuation lists, by providing that the assessment committee should ultimately adjust them, and reconcile any discrepancies between them which might be found to exist. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had, at first, dissented from his proposal; but he had since, to a certain extent, admitted the justice of the principle which it embodied, for he had intimated to him that the chairman, or some other competent member of the committee, was to be introduced in some form or other into the Board, and was to have a voice in the ultimate adjustment of the valuation lists. In these circumstances, he would, with the permission of the Committee, abstain from moving his Amendments.

expressed his willingness to withdraw this clause. He had rested his defence of the present system on the fact that it was the existing law, but he found that the privilege was not claimed. It was not the fact, however, as had been suggested, that when the Union Assessment Act was passed, this appeal to the justices was allowed to remain per incuriam. One reason for its retention was, that it was not thought fit to entrust the assessment committee with that power. The union assessment committee had now been in existence some 16 years, and, on the whole, had worked satisfactorily, and he was, therefore, willing that the appeal should be discontinued.

was proceeding to refer to a provision which, as a consequence of the withdrawal of the 16th clause, he proposed should be inserted at a later stage, when—

ruled that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to a subsequent Amendment.

thought that some new authority should be instituted, to whom the ratepayers might appeal before going to Quarter Sessions. He could not assent to the withdrawal of Clause 16, except upon the understanding that the Government, as soon as possible, should institute County Boards capable of determining appeals on assessment questions.

observed, that what was required was to give the county authorities more power to obtain information, and to give them much the same jurisdiction as the assessment committees now exercised.

said, that the withdrawal of the clause was entirely unconditional, nor was it intended that any tribunal should be substituted for the one abolished. County regulations would be put on a fair basis; but the Boards to be instituted were not to act as courts of appeal. He, however, intended to lay on the Table a new clause on the subject of appeals against valuations, and, with that view, he would withdraw the clause under consideration.

hoped due Notice would be given of the clause to be proposed, in order that hon. Members might be in a position to discuss it.

suggested that it might be necessary to do something more than strike out the clause giving the appeal. The right of appeal from the overseers to the magistrates was of ancient origin, and might be found in many old statutes. It would be better to insert a clause in the Act, providing that after the passing thereof, justices of the peace, sitting in petty sessions, should not hear or determine any appeal against assessments. If that course were adopted, any possibility of doubt would be removed.

was doubtful whether there was to be any real county authority. He was sorry that the Amendments had been withdrawn. In his opinion, there ought to be a County Board to hear appeals from assessments on questions of fact and of value. He had no objection to the abolition of the miserable appeal to the petty sessions; but he hoped the House and the country would have some little opportunity of considering the proposal to be made.

said, it would be best to keep distinct the two questions of the abolition of the old, and the institution of the new, appeal. There was no doubt that the appeal to petty sessions was very unnecessary and objectionable; and whatever might be the decision of the House with regard to the county committee, he thought there could be no objection to the rejection of this clause. The House, however, ought to have ample time for considering any proposal that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might make. He might also add that considerable inconvenience had been caused by the Bill having been put on the Paper that day. In his opinion, the Bill had been hurried forward more hastily than was consistent with its importance.

observed, that the present system was, no doubt, a vicious one. The assessment committee was formed of elected guardians, and of magistrates as ex-officio guardians. By Clause 16 it was provided that an appeal from their decision should lay to the petty sessions, composed entirely of magistrates. He should suggest that in the constitution of the ultimate tribunal of appeal, there should be a certain proportion of the elected guardians of the different unions in the county. In that case, the appellate Board would give satisfaction to the entire county. He would strongly urge the desirability of having a larger representation of elected guardians than merely the chairman of the assessment committee.

said, that though somewhat inconvenient to talk of an Amendment by way of anticipation; still, as it had been suggested that he had yielded a little too easily to the wishes of the President of the Local Government Board, he would make one or two observations on the subject. As he understood, some provision was to be made by which parties connected with the assessment committee, or with members of it, were to have a voice in the adjustment of the county assessment, in order to secure uniformity. He had always felt that appeals to Quarter Sessions were almost valueless. The expense, for one thing, was so great, that persons would not go to the extent of appealing to set right a small wrong. Therefore, appeals had become limited in practice to railways, canals, or large companies. It seemed to him that many persons who had been deterred from going to a Court of Appeal by fear of the expense, would have an opportunity of appealing under the scheme proposed. Furthermore, those discrepancies in assessments which now existed would be abolished. If the state of the case were as he apprehended, and the President of the Local Government Board introduced the provision contemplated, he thought a great step had been made in securing the uniformity he desired to see. He did not, therefore, think he had too readily surrendered, but that, in the present case, discretion was the best part of valour.

thought it inconvenient that they should be discussing this clause when they were told there were other Amendments to it. With regard to the Amendments of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had given Notice upon Clauses 25 and 26, he must say frankly that he looked upon them with suspicion, as likely to lead to the creation of obstacles at some future time to the formation of County Boards. This committee or body, as it would be described in Clause 26, was not at all likely to be the County Board of the future; but he grudged the bestowal upon it of functions which belonged properly to the County Board, of which they had heard so much. The Bill would not, however, meet any undue opposition from him; on the contrary, so far as he was concerned, he should do all in his power to forward its progress; but he did object to any clause which might stand in the way, and render less probable at the earliest possible time, of a measure dealing with the whole question of county management.

wished to point out that if the appeal to petty sessions were done away with, the appeal to Quarter Sessions would be the only one obtainable. That appeal was necessarily a costly one, and he should like the Government to consider whether something could not be done materially to reduce the expense of appealing to Quarter Sessions.

feared that the ratepayer, after what had passed, would be in a much worse position than he was before. The small court of appeal was abolished, and he was sent at once to Quarter Sessions with its attendant expenses. He particularly approved of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rod-well), because he proposed that the county authority should go from place to place deciding questions of fact and of value. There was no reason for employing counsel on the question whether a, house was worth £20 or £30, But now that there was to be no appeal from the assessment committee but to the quarter sessions, not only great trouble but enormous expense would be occasioned.

observed, that it was well-known that no appeals had been made to petty sessions for some time; and, therefore, no one would be affected by that appeal being abolished.

remarked, that petty sessions were not of much value as an appeal court, the magistrates acting on the assessment committee being also on the appeal court. But petty sessions were convenient, from their contiguity, for ratepayers to appeal to on small matters. As the case stood, he was not, however, prepared to say that petty sessions ought to be retained, though, perhaps, more convenient to the ratepayers. A ratepayer would now have the inconvenience of going some 20, 30, or 50 miles, with respect to some little matter which might have been settled within a short distance of his own house. For those reasons, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had consented to introduce the representative element into the appeal court. It was impossible to say more until the proposal was actually before the House.

said, he did not know how any poor man could be expected to be at the cost of an appeal to quarter sessions, which involved the heavy expenses of a solicitor, advocate, witnesses, and surveyors.

said, that that was quite unnecessary as, with small appeals against an assessment upon which satisfaction had not been given by the assessment committee, the case was re-heard by making an appeal against the next rate. He was quite certain that small appellants were more likely to be successful there than at quarter sessions, to which, for that reason, they never had recourse.

said, as matters then stood, nobody knew to what court they were to appeal. He was anxious to know what duties the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the new Board perform, and something definite ought to be stated by the Government on this point. He was loth to part with the present machinery, before he knew what was to be substituted in its place.

replied, that the assessment committees would constitute the court of appeal for small ratings, and he believed that it would not be necessary to substitute anything instead. A new clause would probably be laid on the Table on Monday next, which hon. Members would have the opportunity of examining.

said, the discussion was rather an important one; and as the Government had probably other Business to proceed with, it might be convenient to report Progress, and resume the discussion on another occasion.

said, that a considerable time ago the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) promised that a change would be made in the appointment of the Committee of Management, and of the Governors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland. At present, there was no election of these officers; they were simply appointed at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant; and the promise of the late Chief Secretary, that a change would be made in the mode of their appointment, had not yet been redeemed.

replied, that the promise referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been more than redeemed by the proposals contained in the Grand Jury Law Amendment Bill.

observed, that that Bill had not really been brought forward.

, in rising to call attention to the appalling frequency of disasters in mines, and to move that—

"Inasmuch as the history of mining disasters during the last twenty-seven years proves that many of them have resulted from the culpable neglect of well-known provisions in Acts passed for the safety of those employed in Mines, it is expedient that the Government should at once take steps to see that the inspection ordered by the Mines Act of 1872 be rigorously enforced. That should the powers contained in the above-named Act he insufficient to meet the necessities of all cases, the Government ought to introduce without delay a measure that will;"

said, he, from his own experience in connection with mines, was entitled to speak with some authority on the subject; he had also obtained all the information he could from foreign countries. [The hon. Member then proceeded to review the course of legislation upon the subject from the Act of 1850, which first appointed Inspectors of Mines, down to the Act of 1873, which was now in operation.] In that Act, the rule which was first laid down in the Act of 1855, and repeated in subsequent enactments— namely, that the gases in coal mines should be diluted, and thus rendered harmless, was re-affirmed. For himself, he had most perfect faith in the Act of 1873, and if one or two necessary additions were made to it, he believed it would, if properly carried out, be a perfect measure and prevent the occurrence of these terrible disasters in mines. For the legislation which had been adopted with respect to mines at various times, the miners were especially indebted to Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Charles Neate, Sir George Elliot, Lord Elcho, Lord Kinnaird, and Lord Shaftesbury, whose names would always be regarded by them with feelings of deep gratitude. That good results had attended legislation was shown by the fact that whereas in 1850, when the output of coal was only 50,000,000, tons, about 1,000 lives were lost; in 1877, when the output had increased to nearly 134,000,000 tons, the lives lost did not exceed 1,200. If the death-rate had gone on increasing in the same ratio since 1850, it would by this time have amounted to 3,000, while 14,000 or 15,000 would have been permanently injured. There was yet a great loss of life which ought not to be; but, at the same time, there could be no doubt that the Mines Acts had been highly beneficial. It was not to be inferred that he looked upon these Acts as being ineffectual, but he desired that they should be made more effectual. It had been said that it was recklessness, want of care, and want of skill, on the part of the workmen themselves which led to mining disasters; but he would refer the House to the Mines' Inspectors' Reports, showing what Inspectors and juries said about the causes of accidents. Having quoted from these Reports at some length, the hon. Member said he would challenge the Home Secretary, or any other Member of the House, to dispute his assertion, that in the 27 years during which the Reports had existed, up to 1876, in the case of accidents, where more than two persons were killed, over 3,000 persons altogether had, according to the Reports themselves, lost their lives through neglect attributed by juries or by Inspectors to recklessness on the part of the owners and managers. He would assert further, with perfect confidence, that in the case of accidents where the persons killed were under two, 3,000 more lives had been sacrificed during the same time from the neglect of managers or those in charge of the mines. What was the cause of this frightful sacrifice of human life? It was because the mode of inspection was in a large degree illusory. The public were under the impression that the Colliery Inspectors, to whom large salaries were paid, were engaged in a work which would have the effect of rendering miners tolerably secure of their lives while pursuing the dangerous avocation in which they were engaged from day to day. No greater delusion could possibly possess the minds of men. It was stated by an Inspector (Joseph Dickenson, Esq.), who was examined before the Select Committee in 1866, that he wished it to be understood that he only visited a mine when he had information. Now, information could only be had from two parties—the mine owner or the miner. He had never heard, in all his experience, of a mine owner sending for an Inspector to take note of anything wrong; and with regard to the miners, until the issue of the Home Secretary's Circular, they had had very little confidence in this system of inspection. Now, his contention was, that if the law were carried out, and the gas diluted as it ought to be, the accidents which had occurred would have been rendered impossible. Mr. Wynne, a good, judicious, active, and intelligent Inspector, stated in his Report that the Deep Pit accident, in which 54 lives were lost, occurred in consequence of the employment of an utterly incompetent manager. Yet that manager had a certificate, and for all he knew was a manager still. He had himself attended the investigation into the cause of the Blantyre accident, and witness after witness stated that there had been an utter disregard not only of the special, but of the general rules. Inspectors had complained that their directions were not carried out. He asked, why should not the Inspectors see that their directions were carried out? It was to the disregard of those directions that the loss of life was attributed in many of these cases, yet no efforts seemed to have been made to see that the directions were observed; and therefore he concluded that the system of inspection was, to a large extent, illusory. He repeated, that until they had inspection more complete and more thoroughly effective, they would never have things better than they were now. Inspection had done great good, but inspection should be more effectual. He did not wish in any way to take the management out of the hands of the mine owners; but the Inspectors ought to go more frequently into the mine, as he was sure if they did so the condition of the mine would be more satisfactory. It was, however, contended by some that it was not the want of due inspection, but rather the recklessness of the workmen themselves, which was the cause of so many of those accidents. Now, under the Act of 1872, the mine owners were compelled to have special rules for the conduct, guidance, and discipline of their workmen, and to a breach of those rules was attached the penalty of a fine of £2, or a calendar month's imprisonment. If the rules they made were adequate—if, then, those rules were properly carried into effect, recklessness must, he maintained, be speedily put down, and if life were sacrificed, it was because they were not made sufficiently stringent. It was said that to make them more stringent would be to take away the liberty of the subject; but no man, he contended, should be allowed to be at liberty to imperil the lives of hundreds of his fellow-creatures. In his view, at all events, everything should be done in the way of precaution rather than that those lamentable scenes should occur, which in the course of his life he had so frequently witnessed. The Act of Parliament was nearly all that could be desired. What was required was that its provisions should be thoroughly enforced with respect to ventilation and more complete inspection. The Inspectors ought, he thought, to be called upon to make weekly or monthly Reports, in which a full statement should be given of the visits which they paid to mines, and the condition in which they found them, and blasting should be prohibited in fiery mines. The Home Secretary might perhaps say that a large number of men liked that mode of working; but was he prepared to admit the right of men to destroy one another? He was prepared, as far as the men were concerned, for military discipline, or for examination on entering a mine, as in the case of powder mills, if it were necessary, for the prevention of calamities. Chiefly and in particular he asked the Government to prohibit blasting in fiery mines; for what was the use of precautions with regard to lamps while blasting, which might at any moment dislodge and fire a magazine of gas, was permitted? A state of things was tolerated which was not becoming to the present condition of civilization and knowledge. Another precaution he asked for was walling-up for the prevention of the accumulation of gas in "goaves." He also wished to call attention to the extreme lightness of the penalties for negligence. At present he could only describe them as frivolous, and it would be necessary, not only to make them substantial, but to see that they were enforced. In the case of wholesale loss of life, the fines had been known to be no more than 2s. 6d. for each man killed—far less than a costermonger would have to pay for knocking a person down in a London street. There was also another part of the Inspection Act to which attention should be paid. In the year 1872, after 20 years' agitation, provision had been made by which the certificate of a manager might, if necessary, be cancelled; but under that 32nd clause, though more than 200 accidents had occurred since 1872 in which, the managers ought to have been prosecuted, that had been done only in two cases, and both of them were dismissed. He was confident that there would be a great change, if the provisions of that clause were more generally put into operation. Again, Clause 61 provided that where an owner, or manager, or workman did that which caused bodily injury, he might be punished by imprisonment either with or without hard labour; yet, so far as he knew, no one had ever been prosecuted under that clause, though in all probability there had been numberless occasions for prosecution. He would draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the Chief Inspector of Mines was opposed to the prosecution of managers, and wished to know if the same spirit pervaded the whole body of Inspectors? If the Inspectors took their opinion from the Chief Inspector, they ought to be told this. The intention of the Legislature had been frustrated by the neglect in carrying out this measure for the safety of the men. If it were the fault of the magistrates, then he was sorry that they had not a higher respect for the lives of those who followed this hazardous occupation. If he had spoken warmly, it was because he felt keenly on the subject, having seen whole villages devastated, as he believed by neglect. He would entreat the House to consider the question earnestly and carefully, for the voices of widows and fatherless children cried out for protection. He would also remind the House that they were standing between the dead of Haydock Mine and those who might be placed in a similar position at any moment. The living called upon them to take action. He wished to express his thanks to the present Home Secretary for what he had done in the matter; he had done far more than any of his Predecessors. He had also expressed himself more freely, and he implored him to see that the Act was enforced with great strictness, so that the lives of their sturdy mining population might not be destroyed as they had hitherto been. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Resolution, said, that the subject was one of great importance, and that one of the saddest chapters in the history of British industry was that which told of disasters in connection with mines, presenting, in the midst of peace, almost the terrors and carnage of the battle-field. Certainly, the House had never been indifferent to the necessity of meeting the difficulty. Again and again Committees had inquired into the subject, and Acts of Parliament had been passed in order to mitigate the dangers of mining—Acts which had been attended with the best results, as the percentage of loss of life, whether compared with the quantity of mineral raised or with the number of men employed, had considerably diminished. One of the best Acts ever passed was that of 1872, and if that Act were strictly enforced, very little necessity would exist for new legislation. Never had the position of Home Secretary been filled by a man who was more anxious to enforce that Act than the present occupant of that Office. He felt very much indebted to that right hon. Gentleman for the instructions he had lately issued to the Inspectors, and he believed that very great benefit would accrue from the stricter carrying out of the existing law. He did not desire to utter any wholesale condemnation of the action of the present Inspectors. Whenever he had occasion to personally call their attention to the Acts rot being carried out properly, or to dangers in particular mines, he had always received from them every courtesy and consideration; and, speaking of them generally, he believed they were anxious to discharge conscientiously and energetically the important duties which devolved on them. But there certainly had existed among the Inspectors what he held to be a very vicious theory as to the mode of carrying out inspection. Many of them did not feel it at all incumbent on them to examine a mine unless they were specially sent for, or unless an accident had occurred. The instructions recently issued by the Home Secretary would, he hoped, remove that delusion, and convince the Inspectors that it was their duty to examine a mine, whether they were sent for or not, and whether an accident had or had not happened. Again, when managers had been proved to be negligent, and when there was primâ facie evidence that they were incapable, he thought it would be well that their certificates should be suspended or cancelled. Anyone at all acquainted with the circumstances of the Blantyre Colliery explosion, would know that in that case there had been the grossest negligence and constant violations of the Mines Regulation Act; and if ever proceedings should have been taken to mark such misconduct, surely that would have been a proper instance for doing so. Examples should be made, whether by prosecution or by the suspension or cancelling of managers' certificates, where grave and manifest negligence had been shown. The Inspectors referred to the fact that the workmen did not avail themselves, as they might do, of the power given them by the Act to examine mines. For himself, he was sorry that the men did not adopt that course more frequently. But the examination of a large mine involved a great amount of time and labour; and it was, perhaps, hardly to be expected that a workman would undertake such a task. That provision of the Act had, therefore, not been carried out, except where the workmen were well-organized, and they deputed some of their own body to make the inspection. In certain cases this had been done satisfactorily, and he had never heard of any unpleasantness having arisen between the men and their employers in consequence. He did not wish to palliate the shortcomings of the workpeople when Parliament had given them the power to look after their own safety, and he hoped that part of the Act would be more strictly carried out by the men than it had been hitherto. Turning to the consideration of what further should be done, they came to a more difficult matter than criticism of the present law. They should, however, he thought, be careful not to pass without inquiry any general and sweeping enactments without regard to the peculiarities and circumstances of particular districts. Influential organs of the Press had recommended that the safety-lamp should be adopted throughout all the mines of the country, and that blasting should be altogether abolished. Such a course would not only be unnecessary, but would be even mischievous in its effect. Let him illustrate that by reference to the calamity which had occurred in the Haydock Mine. At Haydock the safety-lamp was in general use, and blasting was strictly prohibited; and yet one of the most disastrous explosions ever recorded in the history of their mining industry happened there the other day. It was not necessary to abolish blasting altogether, for, in many mines, blasting was just as safe as it would be in that House. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at his way of putting it; but what he meant was there was no risk of explosion from blasting except where there was fire-damp, and that was the point under consideration. Explosions were not the only or the chief element of danger which the miner had to encounter. Upwards of 28,000 lives had been lost in mines since 1851, and over 6,000 of them had been lost through explosions; while upwards of 11,000 had been lost through falls of stone and coal. As a practical miner, he did not hesitate to say that if they enforced the general adoption of the safety-lamp, with the miserably insufficient light it yielded, they would greatly increase the dangers arising from causes other than explosions. He thought that in certain parts of the country it might be desirable to abolish blasting altogether; and, as a general rule, blasting should be entirely prohibited wherever it was absolutely necessary that the safety-lamp should be used. It was absurd to hedge about a small flame of less than one inch, and to deal recklessly with a flame which might be hundreds of times as great. After every thing had been done, however, which science could suggest and skill could execute, and after the miners had become careful and intelligent, still mining must remain one of the most dangerous occupations that a man could follow. That, however, afforded the strongest reason why they should do all they possibly could to guard the lives and lighten the burden of those who followed an occupation so laborious and hazardous as that of mining.

said, he had listened with great interest to the able speeches which had been made by the hon. Members for Stafford and Morpeth. Setting aside, for a moment, what some might have thought an exaggeration on the part of the hon. Member for Stafford as to the causes of negligence, he might say that he remembered many of the accidents to which he had referred—for instance, Ince Hall Colliery, near Wigan, and the Oaks Colliery, and the Lundhill catastrophes. In the first case, it was not quite true that the management was censured by the jury. However, he did not intend in any way to oppose the inquiry or to differ from the versions given by the hon. Member for Stafford. From time to time the power given to the Inspectors had led to a great reduction of mischief, and he thought there was no exaggeration in the statement of his hon. Friend, when he said that if the Mines Regulation. Acts had not been in operation the death-rate would have been very much greater than it was now. He was very much struck with the statements which had been read out by the hon. Member for Stafford, and it was a very peculiar point, speaking from experience some 40 or 50 years ago, that the accidents mostly took place in Northumberland and Durham. Afterwards, they took another direction—namely, into South Wales. They then occurred in Yorkshire, and finally found their way to Scotland. His own theory was, perhaps, a curious one; but he maintained his own opinion on this point was correct. It might be interesting to shortly explain it, though not quite pertinent to the argument. But they would find the workings from the surface down to a pit of the depth of 400 or 500 feet were, comparatively speaking, not dangerous at all. From 500 down to 1,000, 1,100 or 1,200 feet, he called the zone of greatest danger; and when that depth was passed, there was again less danger in working the coal. He had found that to be the case in many of the pits in Wales; and he ventured to say, if a record of accidents were taken which had occurred below 500 feet down, and those at a depth of 1,100 feet or 1,200 feet, it would be found that two-thirds of the accidents had happened within, the zone, and neither above or below it. The object he had in mentioning this was, that it might be necessary in revising or considering any further regulations to put in certain stipulations, so that this point might be considered with a view of placing a limit on a more special supervision on what he called the zone of danger. The hon. Member for Morpeth, in a speech to which he had listened with great pleasure, and who had spoken, as usual, with such good sense and good taste, referred to the subject of inspection; but he could not entirely agree with him. He had, however, come to the conclusion that the object of insisting upon this minute inspection was simply an impossibility when looked at from a practical point of view. They required an Inspector to examine coal mines so minutely as to be able to know, direct, and control the general management and ventilation of collieries. That was not possible, as it would not be in the power of anyone to do so. He remembered when he was managing one of his own collieries some years ago—the Usworth—an Inspector came and examined the colliery, and in the course of the examination he made a suggestion, rather a peremptory one, that such and such alteration ought to be made in the ventilation. It happened that everything he suggested to him were the very things he had himself tried previously, and as they had failed, he had been obliged to have recourse to the means then in operation, and which were far superior to the method suggested. This, then, showed that it was impossible for an Inspector, who only visited a mine occasionally, to understand what were the best precautions to be taken as well as the manager of a colliery, who was constantly in attendance. He believed that if too stringent measures were enforced it would only hamper the inspection of mines to a very great extent, and he therefore considered that the making of inquiries by Inspectors from time to time, as to where they were, what they were doing, and requiring proper returns and statements to be made and prepared, would have a much better result. He now came to the next point, which was one which he had been for years acquainted with. He meant the proposition whether coal should be worked by means of gunpowder or by other means. The use of gunpowder simply meant the application of a naked light, which was of itself a great source of danger. He knew that what he was saying would be much criticized, and he was aware, also, that if what he was about to suggest were adopted would affect anyone prejudically, it could not be more prejudicial to anyone more than to himself. These, however, were the convictions he had arrived at, after considering all the circumstances of the case—that the best remedy he could suggest was that naked lights or fires should not be used where inflammable gas existed. If this were not done, accidents would occur from time to time, and one great protection for the miner would be lost. Then another factor in these accidents was this—that mines were now much deeper than they were formerly. Thirty or 40 men were then in a pit; there were now hundreds employed. Where such large numbers were employed, it was impossible to provide against individual carelessness. He had an accident in the colliery within the last two months, where a man endangered the lives of his fellow-men by the most simple inattention to an obvious duty—namely, putting an India-rubber band beneath the glass cylinder of the clanny lamp. As the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) very properly remarked, after everything was done for safety, mining was still a very dangerous employment. It had been stated in that House, that the Mines Regulation Acts had enhanced the cost of the getting of coal by 1s. or 1s. 3d. per ton. Some of the managers had informed him that the Mines Regulation Acts had cost a considerable sum; but he told them that when they alleged that all the increased cost was due to the Acts, he denied the accuracy of their opinion, and told them that they must look elsewhere for the increased cost. What he should like the Government to do was to have a Royal Commission appointed to ascertain how much the Act had increased the cost of production, and how much. The abolition of blasting in fiery mines would probably increase the cost to the consumer; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Morpeth, that in coal mines where there was a great amount of gas, there was no other remedy than the prohibition of the use of gunpowder. There were other remedies which might be used advantageously; but the remedy that he would pledge his honour and his professional opinion and experience to that House, as best conducive to the safety of the miner, was the abolition of gunpowder in fiery mines.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) has done good service to the cause of humanity in drawing attention to accidents in mines, some of which have recently been of appalling severity. No doubt, he is right when he contends that all accidents of this kind are preventable, and, therefore, that they ought to be prevented. Any breach by man of a law of nature is punished with inexorable severity. If a man loses his balance on the top of a precipice, the earth has no bowels of compassion, and by its gravity, assuredly will drag him down and mangle him at the bottom. So is it in mines. There are certain scientific conditions for safety, and when these are kept there is perfect security; but if one of them is broken, the destruction of the miner is swift and sure. The laws under which fiery gas explodes are perfectly known. The dilution with air, which renders it harmless, has been as accurately measured as science and practice can require. Science has given to us, in the safety lamp, a means by which you can pass through explosive mixtures with perfect safety. I have spent hours in a mine, after an accident, in passages filled with explosive gas, with a sense that great care would afford me security. But no sane person ought to trust to this means of safety, except under constant vigilance, for a quick and sudden current of air, or an accidental rupture of the gauze, renders the lamp useless. When the fiery gases begin to flicker inside the safety lamp, that ought to be taken as an immediate warning that the main condition of safety—efficient ventilation—is in a bad state, and it should at once be rectified. Neglect of this precaution is said to have been the cause of the great Blantyre explosion. Yet, with all our knowledge and means of safety, appalling accidents still occur. As they are preventable, and ought to be prevented, on whom should we fix the responsibility? There are two classes primarily responsible. The employers are responsible for all the means of safety under their control, for the winding gear, for the upholding of the passages and other means of communication, for efficient ventilation of the mine, and for the good state of the safety-lamp. The miners, on the other hand, are responsible that they use all these appliances with intelligence and caution. If the miner sits on the cage so carelessly, in the ascent or descent, that he tumbles over, he, and not the employer, is in fault. If the miner leaves open a ventilating door which he should have shut, or if he unscrews his lamp, or pokes a hole in it in order to light his pipe, and an explosion follows, the employer can have no share in this responsibility. Surely, then, it is clear that the relative responsibilities of employer and employed should be sharply defined, and that each should be punished for an infraction of means of security devised for the safety of all those occupied in a mine? Clearly, the two chief factors in carrying out measures of safety are the employers and employed, and nothing whatever should be done to lessen their several, or, it may be, mutual, responsibilities in the eye of the law. But the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford introduces another factor, upon which he would place a chief reliance. He attributes the accidents in mines chiefly to the negligence with which Government inspection is enforced. To my mind, the exaltation of this factor is very likely to lessen the value of the two more important factors—the immediate responsibilities of the employers and employed. Certain powers have been given to the Executive Government to see that well-known measures of safety and good discipline shall be carried out in each mine. A neglect of these forms a proper subject of inspection and prosecution. But no Government inspection can be nearly so effective as the constant immediate responsibilities of employers and employed. The rupture of one wire in the gauze cage of a safety-lamp is sufficient to cause an explosion. What system of inspection can provide against that? The slamming of a door, which may divert the current of air from the fiery facing of coal, when it is oozing out gas at every pore, may produce an explosion. How can Government inspection provide against that? The more that you increase Government inspection, the more you lessen individual responsibility. It is the latter which we should do everything to augment. But personal responsibility is of little value, unless it is guided by intelligence. One single man, by his ignorance, may imperil the safety of a whole mine. Do we do anything to augment that intelligence? The State has made education compulsory, but it does not adapt that education to a working man's requirements. Some higher and specific subjects are attached to schools, in order to induce a brighter intelligence; but they are cast in such a rigid mould, that no teacher can adapt them to the requirements of his pupils. Passes in grammar or geography will never tell a miner what is the nature of air and its movements, so as to produce ventilation, or inform him of the character of fiery gas which is the evil spirit that infests his workings. And so I have seen, when I acted as a Commissioner on Mining Accidents, underground men, responsible for the whole ventilation and safety of a mine, who could not tell me what air was, and who were absolutely ignorant of the nature of the fire-damp which scorched miners, or of choke-damp which suffocated them. I see that the deputation of miners who waited on the Home Secretary the other day admitted this gross ignorance, and asked him to secure knowledge on the part of such men. But how is knowledge to be had when it is not taught? A free grant for such useful knowledge in many districts, instead of grammar, would soon extend it so that knowledge might become power for the prevention of accidents. It is by doing everything to promote the exercise of intelligent watchfulness and care on the part of the employers and employed, that we must look for the lessening of accidents in mines. Government ought to enforce the general rules of safety, as provided by the Act, but should not accept a detailed responsibility which it cannot possibly discharge. But it may do much to promote an intelligent acquaintance with the well-known laws which are necessary for public safety; and when it has given an opportunity in primary and secondary schools for these laws to be learned, then it would be a duty of the State to enforce a knowledge of them on every officer who is charged with the measures of safety.

admitted that the question which had been raised did not concern that House, or the mine owners and those employed in mines alone, but the whole country. There was more coal raised in this country than in all the other parts of the world put together, and in their coal supply lay, to a great extent, the secret of their greatness; and, comparatively, he did not think the number of casualties occurring in the course of mining operations was greater, or as great, here as in other countries where the same industry formed part of the national life. Nothing could be accomplished in the way of preventing accidents except by the co-operation of employers and employed. He was not one who had ever thrown cold water upon inspection, and he quite agreed that if they had more Inspectors it would be better. He believed that inspection in the past had done an enormous amount of good. It could not be denied that they were making progress. He recollected when he was working in the mine himself that women were employed in the mines. The question of ventilation had always been a difficulty. In 1850 he had taken part in an effort which was then made to have an adequate amount of ventilation, and some people who took a great interest in that matter thought it was impossible to have it at all times. He contended they had Inspectors in every mine. In a large mine he had no doubt there were 12 Inspectors. The firemen and others were all Inspectors; but if the Government thought fit to increase the number, he should be glad to see it done. The suggestion as to the extent to which the safety-lamps should be used was an important one. In consequence of the small light it gave there was not a good chance of examining the roof and fractures in the coal, and hence accidents arose. At the same time, he would say that no man ought to have the right to work where it was not safe to have a naked light and to blast. They met with great difficulties, however, in consequence of the great depth, and all mines made gas at one time or another. They had an accident near Bolton some time ago in a mine which was considered to be perfectly safe, and which, he believed, was perfectly safe up to the time of the explosion. The men worked with naked lights, and they blasted coal, but every one of them was killed. That accident was, he had no doubt, due to a sudden outburst of gas. Unfortunately, if an explosion should occur in a well-ventilated mine, the consequences would be much more serious than in an ill-ventilated mine. If examination were made, he thought it would be found that since the last Act was passed, and since they had had heavy ventilation, the explosions had been of a much worse character than formerly. Bitter as the pill might be to swallow, they would have to consider the question of doing away with blasting altogether, and also with the use of naked lights. Their first consideration should be to protect the lives of their workpeople, no matter at what cost, and in saying this he believed he was speaking what was the sentiment of the whole of the coal owners. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) said that the managers ought to be brought into Court whenever an accident occurred; but he deprecated such a proposal, as it would involve a censure on individuals in cases where they might be wholly free from blame. The result of such a course would be that very soon there would not be one reliable manager of a mine left. They should remember that managers and coal owners were not infallible. The occupation in which they were engaged was a very dangerous one, and he believed that in circumstances of great difficulty they did their best. The men engaged in mines would, he was convinced, compare favourably with a like number of men of any other occupation. Where there was good and strict discipline there was little or no recklessness. For the last five years he had not had occasion to call any collier in his employment to account for striking a match, lighting a pipe, or doing any other act which might occasion an explosion. Hard things had been said of mine managers, but they should remember that these men were formerly workers in the mines, and were selected for their position on account of their special fitness, skill, and good conduct. Then, again, an owner invested in a mine £50,000 or £100,000, and it was simply preposterous to think that either manager or owner would be so negligent as the one to bring ruin upon himself or the other to leave himself open to a criminal prosecution. If the Home Secretary and the House thought it desirable to have the subject investigated by a Committee, both owners and managers would afford them every facility to make the inquiry complete and satisfactory He believed they would also heartily co-operate in the carrying out of any scheme by which life and property would be rendered more secure than they now were.

said, he thought the Members of the House who interested themselves in the promotion of the Mines Regulation Act of 1872 had every reason to congratulate themselves on the success of that measure. It had not accomplished everything that some of its warmest promoters expected from it, but it had achieved a great deal; and worked, as it would be in the future, under the rules that the Home Secretary had just drawn up for the guidance of Inspectors, it would, no doubt, produce better results in the time to come. He thought the House, and the country too, ought to be congratulated on the improved tone of the discussion which took place on this subject. Everyone familiar with mining legislation could not fail to be struck with the different spirit that now pervaded the speeches on both sides of the House, with that which pervaded them when those measures were first introduced. The fears then entertained as to the consequences likely to be produced had proved to be fallacious, and the good results were acknowledged by all. Casualties in mines occurred from three causes. First, there were accidents that were unpreventable. No skill, or science, or art, could stop them. Under certain conditions that were unknown and inevitable, sad catastrophes took place. Others occurred through the ignorance or indifference of the owners and managers. Others, again, through the recklessness and carelessness of the workmen. But he believed that these two latter kind of accidents were greatly exaggerated. They were not nearly so numerous as was generally supposed. It should always be recollected that a miner went to work with his life in his hand. A coal owner by his carelessness risked his property. He could not insure himself against accidents. A man might buy a ship, insure it, send it to sea, and sink it, and perhaps be a gainer in consequence. But they could not insure a mine, and everyone who lived in mining districts knew numerous incidents where men had been ruined through accidents in their collieries. They might make up their minds, therefore, that under any circumstances, even the most favourable, they would always have accidents in these undertakings. The public were only excited on this subject when they received intelligence of some terrible explosion. It should be recollected, however, as his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had said, that the number of people killed by explosions was, comparatively, much smaller than those killed by the ordinary working of mines, such as the falling of the roof, and other unavoidable causes. The number of persons thus deprived of life was considerable; but the circumstances usually excited little commiseration, as they came two or three at a time, and not in scores or hundreds. But even that was not the worst of it. There were hundreds and thousands of men who met with accidents, who, though not killed outright, were maimed for life, and whose calamities were never heard of. The Home Secretary received a list of the persons who were absolutely killed, but he received no return as to the number of men who had their backs injured, their ribs squeezed in, or their legs broken—men who were carried home alive, who might live for a few weeks, a few months, a few years, but who were useless to themselves and a burden to their relatives. It was some provision for these men that ought to be made. They had a Society in the North of England—the Miner's Provident—and he believed the records showed that one out of every six members in a year received more or less injury in the pits. It had been calculated, upon very good authority, that something like 20,000 miners in a twelvemonth were injured in the pursuit of their employment. What he would suggest to the Home Secretary was, that a provision should be made for the families of these men, and for the men themselves, when they could not continue their work. By the imposition of a tax of, say a farthing a-ton, or half-a-farthing a-ton on all coal raised, and by the men themselves agreeing to contribute a certain percentage of their wages, a fund might be accumulated that would provide for all contingencies, and prevent the constant appeals to the public for help that were now made for the miners after a calamity. The fund in Northumberland had been successful. What he desired was to simply take that principle, and apply it to the whole nation. They had a precedent for it. Many years ago the keelmen on the river Tyne—men who were employed in carrying the coals from the staithes to the ships—had a fund of this kind established. The late Lord Brougham (then Mr. Brougham) and the late Lord Abinger (then Mr. Scarlett), and others, interested themselves in passing a Bill through Parliament that imposed a farthing a-chaldron on all coals that were shipped in the Tyne, and 8d. a-tide on the men. This fund, for years, was the support of disabled watermen, and was highly successful. By the altered circumstances of commerce the trade had decayed, and the fund was abolished. But the principle that underlay it might be fairly applied to mining operations generally. The mine owners would not suffer by it, because the farthing a-ton would ultimately come out of the consumers' pocket. The public would not be injured, because the poor rate would be lessened in consequence; and the men, by contributing to it, would feel that they were doing something towards their own comfort and independence in infirmity and old age. He would make still another suggestion. It was observed that accidents in coal mines seldom came singly. When there had been one, two or three always succeeded it. There was every reason to believe that these casualties were occasioned by some sudden and great change in the atmosphere. Whenever a cyclone or circle of storms visited this country, they frequently produced a series of mining accidents. What he would suggest to the Home Secretary was, that he should telegraph to the different mines in the country in the same way as he telegraphed to the different seaports an indication of a coming storm or change in the weather. The publication of this meteorological information had been of great service to seamen, and he felt satisfied that if like care were taken in giving similar warnings to mine owners and managers, that some, at least, of the explosions might be avoided. What might be only a piece of inoffensive carelessness one day when the weather was fine, might the next day, on account of the difference in the atmosphere, be the cause of a serious catastrophe. If the miners were called upon to give additional care when the weather was threatening, then some of the accidents might be prevented, or their severity lessened. One observation further he wished to make, and that was with respect to the use of blasting powder. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Durham (Sir George Elliot), that the use of blasting powder ought to be prevented in fiery mines. He also agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth, that wherever safety-lamps had to be used blasting ought to be prohibited. But it would be folly to discontinue blasting in all mines, especially in cases where they could use candle openly, and where there was no gas. They might blast whole coal without danger. It was when they began to blast the pillars in the "broken," that there was the greatest risk. They talked about the additional costs that the Mines Regulation. Act had thrown upon the production of coal; but if Parliament made up its mind to prohibit absolutely, and under all circumstances, the use of blasting powder, they would find that they would entail upon the consumer a vast deal greater charge than ever the Mines Regulation Act had heretofore imposed. He also desired them to remember that by preventing the use of powder, they would greatly increase the labour of the miner and the hardships of his occupation. The use of powder might be reckless, but regulation was one thing and prevention another.

said, the country ought to be proud of men such as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and his two hon. Friends behind him, who, having begun life as practical miners, had raised themselves to the position which they now occupied. Those who had any share in the passing of the Mines Regulation Act of 1872 must be gratified at the testimony which had been borne by those hon. Gentlemen to its value as a piece of legislation, and that all that was necessary was that it should be put into operation. He had always held that the principle of a periodical inspection of mines was perfectly sound, and he was glad to hear that a reduction of loss of life had followed; but there were so many mines, that it was impossible to look either for a thorough or for a daily inspection, but only for such as would give practical effect to the Act. He had seen the special instructions issued by the Home Secretary, and he felt that all that could be done without fresh legislation should be tried first; and, of course, if that proved insufficient, the right hon. Gentleman could take further steps for the attainment of his object, with the full knowledge that the House would support him in all that he might think necessary for the benefit of the mining population.

ventured to make a call upon men of science to do what they could for the prevention of accidents in mines. Parliament had done its duty by passing Acts to insure all due precautions being taken, and if scientific men could suggest some means by which accumulations of fire-damp might be traced, or made visible, it would be a great boon. It appeared to him quite possible that some chemical means could be found to make the presence of the gas visible, and he saw no reason why the scientific difficulty need be considered insuperable.

said, that he was extremely glad that this subject had been debated, and nothing rejoiced him more than the tone in which the discussion had been conducted; for it showed, at all events, a common feeling among employers and employed, and all connected with mines, that everything should be done that could be done, either by legislation or otherwise, for the purpose of reducing, as far as possible, the danger to the workmen in mines. So far as that went, he was grateful to the hon. Members who had spoken for strengthening the hands of the Secretary of State in carrying out the work in which he had been for some time engaged; and he could not treat the debate as an attack, either upon the Government or himself. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had been good enough the other day to introduce to him a deputation, from whom he had learned that the Mines Act was being worked in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, he did not think that the Motion on the Paper was in the least a reflection on the Government. With respect to the practical question of what could be done, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) went a good deal into the early history of the loss of life in mining operations; and also, with respect to later times, he had shown that, although accidents were much less frequent than formerly, there were still sufficient to direct attention to the subject, and to prove the need of further action to reduce the loss of life in these operations. It was not his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) desire to lay undue stress on what had already been done, nor could he contend that enough had been achieved. But it was right that it should be known that the Mining Acts that had been passed had been very successful, and had materially reduced the loss of life. If they looked at the Reports of the Mining Inspectors for the present year, they would find that, taking the decade from 1851 to 1860, the loss of life from explosions had reached 82 in the year. That was the number of accidents, not of deaths. In the next 10 years—1860 to 1870—the average was 56. Further, if they took from the time of the Mines Regulation Act—namely, the beginning of 1873 to the end of 1877—they would find that the average had been reduced to 44. The result, therefore, was that, in the first 10 years he had taken, the accidents causing one or more deaths were 82, and since the passing of the Act they had been only 44. That showed, at all events, a considerable reduction. Again, if the number of deaths caused by accidents, and not the number of accidents, were taken for the same period—from 1851 to 1860—the average each year would be found to be 244. In the next decade, the average was reduced to 226; and, since the passing of the Mines Regulation Act, the average had been still further reduced to 99. Thus, since the passing of the Act, the number of deaths had been reduced from 244 to 99. That was a great step in the right direction, and it became a much greater step if they took into consideration the increased number of people employed in mining operations. They must also consider what fell from the hon. Member for North Durham (Sir George Elliot), and which, to his mind, had a very great deal to do with these accidents—namely, that they had got down to the dangerous zone. They were not now working the same class of mines as in the first decade; but a much more dangerous class was being worked in many parts of the country, and also, probably, worked without those persons who were engaged in the mining operations knowing of the danger which they were incurring. Taking that into consideration, they would find that, in the first period he had taken, the ratio of persons employed to each death was 1,008, and in the second decade, it was 1,400. That was a considerable difference. He did not wish to press too much on figures; all he desired to show was, that from 1851 to the present time, there had been a great reduction in the number of deaths, and in the number of accidents causing deaths—a very large reduction when the increased number of people employed in mines was considered. He only hoped that when the Act had been enforced for a few more years, they might be able to reduce that number considerably below its present rate. The deputation, introduced to him by the hon. Member for Morpeth, spoke of several points on which they thought the Mines Regulation Act ought to be strictly enforced, and he entirely agreed with them. When he first came into Office that Act was handed over to him by his Predecessor, and required very carefully looking into; and the longer he had been in Office the more he had been impressed with that fact. He did not think he should be charged with not having put the Act into force to a greater extent than it had formerly been. There had not been, to his knowledge, any serious accident in regard to which he had not sent down a special person to inquire at the inquest into the cause of death. He only mentioned the point for this reason, that it was curious to see in how few cases he had been able to institute a prosecution. He had always sent down the most independent man he could find to the inquest; and, except when he first came into Office, and when he admitted that he was not quite so much alive to the working of the Act as he had since become—in every single case since, he had given absolute instructions that wherever a prosecution could be instituted, criminally or otherwise, it should be done. In the result, he was bound to say that they were very seldom able to prosecute; but, whenever they could show actual criminal negligence, a prosecution had been instituted. The hon. Member for Morpeth and the hon. Member for Stafford, in common with the deputation, were of opinion that very great care ought to be taken with regard to the certificates of managers. He entirely agreed with that; he looked upon the certificates of managers of mines precisely in the same light as the certificates of the masters of ships, licensed by the Board of Trade. He thought that wherever there was any negligence by which the master of a ship could have had his certificate taken away, the same rule ought to be followed in the case of a negligent manager of a mine. The result had been, that in the instructions which had been issued the Inspectors—and he could not act without a report—had every one of them a special notice, that if they saw there was such negligence as in their opinion would warrant a prosecution in the case of a certificated manager of a mine, they must give information to the Home Office in order that an immediate prosecution might take place. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had said that there was a difficulty about Inspectors, because an Inspector might go to a mine one day and find it perfectly safe, yet a sudden explosion might occur in it—perhaps the next day, or the week after it had been inspected—and something very serious might occur. Therefore, the hon. Member for Morpeth, and the deputation, expressed some doubt whether inspection as now carried out would protect the owner of a mine. His answer was that he did not think inspection would protect the owner of a mine, except in this respect—that if the mines were constantly inspected, the Report of the Inspector would be primâ facie evidence before a jury that the owner and manager had taken proper precautions. But if it were proved, also, that the owner or manager of the mine had been guilty of carelessness, he would be equally liable whether or not the Inspector had gone over the mine. When they came to the case of inspection, he agreed with what had been said in the course of the debate, that they must rely mainly for the operation of the Act upon the responsibility of employers and employed; they must rely, so far as the Home Office was concerned, upon inspection, but not too much, because the Inspector might go into a mine one day and report it safe, and the week after it might be in a totally different condition. What he meant to say was, that no number of Inspectors they could possibly have could inspect all the mines and all the workings in mines. It was within the knowledge of everyone that was at all acquainted with mines, that it could not on any day be told from what quarter danger would come, or whether a mine would continue safe one single day. But the duty of the Inspectors must be to see that the special rules were right, that the general rules were carried out, and that the general discipline of the mine was right and proper. He quite agreed that there had been differences of opinion among Inspectors as to what their actual duties really were. Some of them he knew had expressed the opinion that they were not to visit a mine unless there had been some accident there, or unless they had been sent for either by the workmen or someone else. That view he entirely repudiated, and, in the result, he had thought it better to issue consolidated regulations from the Home Office to the Inspectors, which would state as clearly as could be the views of the Home Office as to their duties. Those regulations stated that, first of all, it was the duty of an Inspector to visit and inspect a mine on invitation; next, on complaint; and, inasmuch as miners were apt to shrink from volunteering information for fear of giving offence to their employers, the Inspectors should pay attention even to anonymous complaints, provided that they were not on their face incredible or unreasonable. Further, wherever the information proceeded from—a private or anonymous source—he should be careful so to conduct the inquiry that it should not point to his informant, or lead to his becoming known, when he had received neither invitation nor complaint; but from information—such as from time to time could not fail to come to him in the course of the regular discharge of his duties—he had reason to believe that the mine was not satisfactorily conducted, or was not in accordance with the Statute. In the above cases the Inspector would not send notice of his intended visit, if, in his judgment, it was likely to frustrate the object of the inquiry. In addition to these inspections, which were imperative, and other inspections which the Inspector might take the opportunity of making when he had to visit a mine for the purpose of transacting other business—as inquiry into an accident, or arranging for the establishment of special rules—it would be the duty of the Inspector to devote whatever time he could spare to the inspection of those mines where he thought it most likely to be of service, such inspection to be above ground and below ground, and without notice. The liability to an official inspection at any time, without warning, might be a most effective guarantee against abuse; and an unexpected visit from an Inspector was none the less beneficial because he found nothing of which to complain. The Inspector, therefore, should make a point of arranging his business, and that of the Assistant Inspector, with a special view to secure as large an amount of time as possible for these casual inspections. It was in the confidence that Inspectors realized and conscientiously discharged this obligation, that the Secretary of State had abstained from requiring each Inspector to send in a periodical Report of the business done on each day. But this dispensation made it the more necessary that an Inspector, in drawing up his annual Report, should, for the satisfaction of Parliament and the country, state enough to show that this most important part of his duties had been habitually and effectively carried out. For that purpose, the Inspector would keep a record of his visits to all the mines which he inspected, and of the result of each inspection. Those were the Rules which had been issued for the information of Inspectors, and he did not think that inspection could be carried further than was laid down by them. Then, so far as the competency of the managers was concerned, whatever circumstance came to the knowledge of the Inspector which should lead him to the opinion that an inquiry ought to be made under Section 32 of the Mines Regulation Act, it would be his duty to make application to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Morpeth and the hon. Member for Stafford had alluded to the use of safety-lamps and to operations by blasting. He quite agreed that it would be wise—wherever it was necessary to do so—to use the best safety-lamps that could possibly be employed. But it should not be forgotten that there was danger from the falling of the roof, and there could be no doubt that the number of accidents from that source was greater than those from explosions. They must not, therefore, come to the conclusion that because it was insisted that everybody carried a safety-lamp, all the danger would be got rid of; for, in some cases, instead of preventing danger, the tendency was to increase it. The question of introducing the safety-lamp must be treated with discretion. With regard to blasting, that was a very different question, and he was aware that there had been a great difference of opinion amongst Inspectors on that point. Some of the Inspectors held a very strong conviction that blasting ought to be given up in what were called fiery mines. No one would say, however, that blasting ought to be given up in every mine. In some mines it would be a great deal safer to blast than in that House, and would not produce such dangerous consequences. In several cases which had come under his notice, he had pressed on the owners of collieries—for he had no power to interfere further—that they should give up blasting by gunpowder in fiery mines. But he had known in many instances that the objection to the discontinuance of blasting came not so much from the masters and colliery owners as from the men themselves; because, where blasting was employed, a much greater quantity of coal could be obtained in a shorter time. What he said to the deputation the other day, and which he thought ought to be fairly considered, was, that in all cases where the mine owner was unwilling that blasting should be employed, the men ought to make no objection. If objection on the part of the men should cease, he did not believe there would be much on the part of the owners to the discontinuance of blasting. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Durham (Sir George Elliot), he did not think that the cost of getting the coal without blasting would be very much increased. So long as blasting was carried on in the fiery mines, it was obvious that the danger must be greatly increased. Why was it that in those dangerous mines the men were compelled to have safety-lamps? Because it was not thought right that a candle or naked light should be used. But if a wretched farthing candle could not be trusted, why could a great stream of light from blasting be allowed? It was inconsistent to prohibit the farthing candle and to permit the blast. He did not think that at the present moment it would be necessary to appoint a Royal Commission, because the Government had called the attention of mine owners throughout the country to the subject, and before another Session he hoped to have their opinion upon it. Attention had been very much drawn to the question for more than 12 months, and opinion was gradually ripening upon it. Having spoken something with regard to the duties of Inspectors, and of colliery owners, and of certificated managers, he would now say one word about the men themselves. Whatever inspection there might be, whatever regulations might be laid down, however careful owners and managers might be, they must not rely upon Inspectors, or managers, or employers, but upon the employed. All were engaged in one common business and one common trade; there was a common danger, and no Inspectors, and no care on the part of the colliery owners or managers, would be of any avail unless there was a reciprocal attention on the part of the men. They must not endanger others by breaking rules to gratify themselves, nor must they put their fellow-workmen in jeopardy by their carelessness; for, if they did not take precautions, no power, no care, on the part of anyone else, could prevent accidents. With respect to the working of the Explosives Act, which was passed some four or five years ago, he might say that it had worked incalculable good. It had prevented many accidents, but only because the most stringent possible regulations were laid down by it for the workmen themselves. He only mentioned this for the purpose of showing that mining, being a dangerous operation, every precaution must be taken on the part, not only of mine owners and managers, but of all employed in the working. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Durham, that the mining operations in many parts of the country were now penetrating a dangerous section. This was particularly the case in the Scottish coal fields, on which the Blantyre explosion occurred not long since. That district was one of those where those engaged in mining operations ought to be especially careful; and it was important that colliery owners and workers should be informed of the danger they were incurring, and he hoped that they would take the necessary precautions for avoiding the recurrence of such a terrible accident as the Blantyre explosion. He entirely agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Play-fair), that not only should reliance be placed upon employers and employed, but that a very great gain would be achieved by instructing those persons of an ordinary rank of life, who were forced into positions of great responsibility, in the nature of the particular dangers which not only themselves, but all employed under them, incurred. So far as he was concerned, that suggestion should be acted upon. With the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) he also agreed. Whether practical or not he could not say; but it was certainly desirable that men of science should direct their attention to the discovery of some means of obtaining special warning of the pressure of gas in mines. No doubt, also, what had been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), as to atmospheric influence being of great importance in mining operations, was also correct. He would not trouble the House further, but would only ask the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), after what had passed, whether he proposed to take a division on the subject? He had called the attention of the House to the matter, and had raised a debate which, he was sure, would be satisfactory to him and other hon. Members interested in the subject. He must say that the object and intention, not only of the Government, but of the whole House, was to reduce the loss of life by these particular accidents; and by a division the hon. Member would only throw an implied censure upon those who were engaged in carrying out the working of the existing Acts. The hon. Member might rest assured that, so far as he had anything to do with the Home Office, he would take care that the future regulations that might be made would be in the direction of those at present in existence, and that everything that was possible would be done to insure the safety of life and property amongst those who were engaged in what must always be a most dangerous avocation.

expressed the satisfaction he felt at the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in all of which he entirely agreed. The debate on the whole was the best he had ever listened to on the subject, showing, as it did, the practical knowledge of this important question possessed by many hon. Members of the House. He did not at all wonder at the interest with which the House regarded the matter, because colliery accidents were of a terrible character; and if, by legislation, they could in any way suppress or reduce them to a minimum, the House ought certainly to adopt measures to bring about so desirable an end. For many years he had taken part in every Committee and every Bill in reference to lessening these disasters, and it was certainly very pleasing to find, from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the Acts which had been passed had conduced to the saving of so many lives. He believed more might be done by the stringent carrying out of the Mines Regulation Act. If, in future years, it should be found that other arrangements might be made for further reducing the loss of life, by all means let them be adopted. He must confess, however, that he could not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). The hon. Member appeared to think that better chemical tests for gas in mines were required; but he (Mr. Hussey Vivian) would remind the House that the tests for gas were of the most delicate character. Anyone who, like himself, had seen gas tested in mines, could not but feel that this was the case; and, therefore, he did not think it would be of much use to look in that direction for an improvement. He entirely coincided with the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen). He (Mr. Hussey Vivian) thought the House ought to turn its attention to insisting on a fund being provided for the support of widows and children of those who were killed by these terrible disasters; and he urged on the Home Secretary the desirability of passing an Act with such a provision in it. He felt sure that employers as well as employed would gladly support any such measure, because it might be depended upon that so long as this most dangerous business was carried on, so long would they, from time to time, be liable to these frightful calamities. The great point, therefore, to be thought of was, if these calamities did occur, that those who were left destitute owing to them should not suffer in consequence of the loss of the breadwinners. Therefore, he impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the necessity of adopting such a measure as had been shadowed forth by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). Without entering into details, he must say that there could be no question that safety-lamps ought to be employed in every mine where gas existed. He had always caused them to be used in mines where he was interested, and he could safely say no practical difficulty had arisen there from. The question of blasting was certainly one of extreme difficulty. It was quite clear that the ordinary men ought not to be allowed to blast for themselves, and that special men should be told off to fire all shots. The absolute prohibition of blasting was a question of extreme difficulty; and, before any rules could be laid down in such behalf, a great deal of consideration would have to be given to the whole subject.

desired to say a word or two, and if he were out of Order, he craved the indulgence of the House while he did so. One thing he would say of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), he differed with him in toto. As for the effect of his question that he had put, he would only say further, that so long as the good people of Stafford enabled him to hold a seat in the House, he would continue to put such questions if the need required it. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] He could not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) and the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) in favour of a fund being provided by the State to meet the distress caused by such disasters. He preferred such events being met by the providence of the people rather than by the funds of the State. He desired to protect men from loss of life; but if that unfortunately came about, he preferred them to meet the wants of their family by their own foresight and thrift. Considering the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had drawn up, and the assurances he had given that the whole subject should not escape his careful consideration, he (Mr. Macdonald) would follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

said, without wishing to raise a discussion upon the particular Bill, the second reading of which had just been moved, he would remind the House that the Government had brought forward, in "another place," a very important Bill relating to the Medical Profession. That Bill had been very thoroughly discussed, and, without wishing to refer to its details then, he suggested whether, before the Bill now before the House, coming from a private source, was read a second time, the Government should not say if they consented to such a course, before the second reading of their own measure, which was fixed for Monday? He also desired to know if it were intended to refer the whole question to a Select Committee, and so delay most important legislation which had been desired for years'?

could not help thinking that his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) would do better by not pressing his Bill to a second reading until the Government measure was brought before the House. He did not wish to express an opinion at that moment upon the Bill of his hon. Friend, because he had not given it any careful consideration; but he was aware that it related to a rather important question with reference to the constitution of the Medical Council. He suggested to his hon. Friend to agree to a further adjournment of the second reading, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would move that the debate be now adjourned.

said, he should be quite content to act upon the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only wished to say, in reference to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), that his (Mr. Mill's) Bill had been printed for three weeks, and more than 100 Petitions had been presented to the House in its favour from medical men in various parts of the country. It also had very cordial support from the medical journals. Importance was attached to the one element of his Bill in which it differed from the Government measure—namely, the introduction of the direct representation of the Profession upon the Medical Council. As that provision was considered of great value by the Profession, he certainly should not withdraw the Bill; but, on the contrary, should persevere with it to the end. In so acting, he did not wish to show any hostility to the Government measure; nor, as suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, had he any desire to delay legislation on the subject. He (Mr. Mills) was as anxious as anyone that the question should be at once dealt with; but, at the same time, he wished to have a thoroughly good and complete Bill while they were about it. He hoped an arrangement might be come to, whereby the Government would be able to embody in their Bill that one feature by which his differed from theirs—that providing for the direct representation of the Profession on the Medical Council. He did not propose this alteration in consequence of any want of confidence in the Medical Council, but he thought it would be very satisfactory to the Profession and tend to strengthen the Council if such an element were introduced into it as proposed by him. Agreeing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the two measures should be taken together, he should put his Bill down for Monday, on which day he understood the Government measure was to be taken. He might mention to the House that the Bill had on its back not only his name, but the names of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), so that it could not be said to be a Party measure.

pointed out to his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that great practical inconvenience would arise if the Bill of the hon. Member for Exeter were brought forward as antagonistic to the measure of the Government at so late a period of the Session. He reminded the hon. Member for Exeter that it would be competent for him to raise the question which his Bill was intended to bring before the House upon the second reading of the Government Bill. He therefore put it to him, whether that would not be the best time of raising the question as to the direct representation of the Profession on the Medical Council. At any rate, it seemed to him that if the two Bills were to be considered, they should be taken at a period of the Session when the House would be able to give such attention to them as the importance of the subject really demanded. There was no question of a large and widespread feeling of dissatisfaction existing throughout the Medical Profession as to the constitution of the Medical Council. Whether that was just or not, it was not for him to say, but it did exist; and he hoped that some assurance would be given by the Government that a fair opportunity should be afforded for raising the question, brought before the House by the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what the majority of those interested desired —refer this intricate question to a Select Committee. He considered that the principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Exeter could hardly be fairly discussed at that period of the Session. The Bill raised a very important consideration, and he (Mr. Errington) believed it would be much more in accord- ance with the desire of the bulk of the Medical Profession if the matter were referred to a Select Committee, so that another year the whole subject might be completely and properly dealt with.

desired to speak as strongly as he could in favour of the suggestion of his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House. The whole subject was too important, and involved too many interests, for it to be properly discussed at such a period of the Session. The College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and many others, felt very strongly on the question; and he did not think that the interests which such a measure would affect should be dealt with without the parties most concerned by such legislation having an opportunity of expressing their views before a Select Committee. Therefore, he hoped the Bills would not be pressed on to a second reading, unless on the understanding that they should be referred to such a Committee. He did not disguise from himself, or from the House, that the effect of such a reference would be to defer the whole subject to another Session. But, surely, it would be infinitely better to delay legislation for a year than allow those Corporations to be under the impression that they had suffered by the Bills being unduly pressed forward at such a period?

thought it would be better not to proceed with the Bill until the Government measure had been brought before the House. He therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.