and a Division; but he conceived it to be the duty of those Members of that House who had special information on a subject to communicate that information to the House. That must be his excuse for addressing their Lordships for the first time. Some years ago, he was incumbent of the parish of St. Gilesin-the-Fields, of which the population was 37,000, 25,000 of whom were under his own care. The parish included all grades of the working classes, from the costermonger to the journeyman baker. When he first went to the parish that question was rapidly coming to the front, and he wished to ascertain what the opinion of his parishioners was upon the subject, and how far they regarded the prohibition as a class grievance. For that purpose he availed himself of the services of eight men of intelligence and high character, who were well acquainted with all classes in the parish. Without giving those men any bias one way or the other-because at that time he had formed no definite opinion on the subject-he sent them among the poor of his parish and requested them to ascertain within the next few months, by means of conversation, what their feelings were with regard to this measure, and to reply to three questions which were put to them. The three questions were-First-"Did you ever know the subject introduced by the poor themselves ?" Second-"Is there any bias among the women of the poorer classes in favour of this change in law?" And, thirdly-"Is there reason to believe that the existing state of the law is regarded by the working classes as a class grievance?" In answer to the first question, seven out of eight of his informants replied "Never," while one said that the subject had been introduced by the poor themselves on six occasions. To the second question, seven out of the eight gave a decided negative, and one said that it was looked upon as a matter of prudence; and where the marriage had already been contracted, especially if there were many in the family, both parties, but especially the woman, was decidedly in favour of the Bill. But, perhaps, their Lordships might be of opinion that the answer given to the third question was the most important of all. All the eight answered it decidedly in the negative. He had also an opportunity of discussing this question with a number of working The Bishop of Rochester as men, in a friendly manner; and with candour he was perfectly willing to admit that out of these eight men four, a matter of personal preference, were in favour of it, and four were against it. They scouted the idea, when he put it to them, of its being treated by the working men as a class grievance; and one of them, who advocated a change of the law, said with emphasis that working men had no intention to break the law; they were perfectly prepared to obey it as it stood. Of course, he was not going to be so preposterous as to ask their Lordships to take this evidence as conclusively in favour of the assertion that the working classes were opposed to the proposed change in the law; but they had a right to claim from those who stated that they had the opinion of the working classes on their side an exhaustive, honest inquiry of the kind he had made, and they would see the result. On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion (leave being given to the Lord Middleton to vote in the Alcester, L. Monson, L. don, L. Ardilaun, L. Mostyn, L. Ashburton, L. Auckland, L. Balinhard, L.(E. South monde.) Exeter, L. Bp. Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp. Hereford, L. Bp. Lincoln, L. Bp. Falmouth, V. Hutchinson, V. (E. Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Lifford, V. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) Lawrence, L. Loftus, L. (M. Ely.) Londesborough, L. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) Northumberland, D. Richmond, D. Rutland, D. Amherst, E. London, L. Bp. Monteagle of Bran- Beauchamp, E. [Teller.] Winchester, L. Bp. Ormathwaite, L. Brooke and Warwick, Ormonde, L. (M. Or- Carnarvon, E. Amherst, L.(V.Holmes dale.) E. Cairns, E. Dartmouth, E. Arundell of Wardour, L. Clermont, L. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Clifton,L (E. Darnley.) Clonbrock, L. Saye and Sele, L. Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.) Shute, L. (V. Barring (E. Fife.) Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) Somerton, L. (E. Nor. field.) Strathspey, L. (E. Sea. field.) Cottesloe, L. Sudeley, L. Dacre, L. Suffield, L. De L'Isle and Dudley, Teynham, L. L. Thurlow, L. Tollemache, L. Tredegar, L. Truro, L. Mar and Kellie, E. Morton, E. Mount Edgcumbe, E. Nelson, E. Ravensworth, E. (V. En Powis, E. Redesdale, E. Rosse, E. Selkirk, E. Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.) Tweedmouth, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) [Teller.] Strathmore and Kinghorn, E. Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Waldegrave, E. Wilton, E. manston.) Greville, L. Gwydir, L. Walsingham, L. Bridport, V. Haldon, L. Waveney, L. Cranbrook, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Wentworth, L. Hardinge, V. Harris, L. Westbury, L. Hawarden, V. Hastings, L. Wimborne, L. Melville, V.. Hopetoun, L. (E Hope- Wolverton, L. Sidmouth, V. toun.) Worlingham, L. (E. Strathallan, V. Hothfield, L. Gosford.) Templetown, V. Houghton, L. Sundridge, L. (D. Ar Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess- Wigan, L. (E. Craw borough.) ford and Balcarres.) Raglan, L. Windsor, L. Rayleigh, L. Wimmarleigh, L. Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.) Wynford, L. Sackville, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L. Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 2' accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. THE EARL OF STRADBROKE said, he claimed to have his vote recorded for the Bill, on the ground that he had been accidentally shut out from the House when the Division was about to be taken. Moved, "That the vote of the Earl of Stradbroke be recorded." EARL GRANVILLE said, he regretted that, by any mistake, the noble Earl should have been excluded; but he was afraid there was no precedent for the privilege which he claimed. EARL CAIRNS said, the noble Earl was in the House, and the door was shut in his face. EARL GRANVILLE said, if the noble Earl was actually in the House, there was no reason why his vote should not be recorded. THE EARL OF STRADBROKE explained to the House that he was in the Writing Room at the time. EARL GRANVILLE said, he was afraid, if that was so, they had lost the vote of the noble Earl. On Question? Resolved in the nega tive. House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock. Monday, 11th June, 1883. MINUTES.]-PRIVATE BILL (by Order)· Considered as amended-Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway *. PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading-Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [211]; Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [130], debate adjourned. Report of Select Committee-Forest of Dean (Highways). Committee-Report-Lord Alcester's Grant (recomm.) [207]; Lord Wolseley's Grant (recomm.) [208]. Considered as amended-Registry of Deeds (Ireland) [202]. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. "That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection," said, that the object of his Motion was to secure that the Bill should be referred, not to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, but to a Hybrid Committee; and he could hardly understand how there could be any reason for objecting to a Motion such as that. His desire, of course, was to enable persons to appear before a Committee, without being compelled, in the first instance, to establish a locus standi. That was the usual course in cases in which the public interests were involved -namely, to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, for the purpose of having the public interests properly represented." Nobody would pretend that the Metropolitan Board of Works represented the public interests, or the interests of the ratepayers. Nor would anybody contend that the London Commissioners of Sewers represented the public interests. The interests of those who travelled by the District Railway were not likely to be served by the rejection of the present proposition, which was simply to enable persons who were interested in the question to appear before the Committee, without being obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. So far the House had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to these Bills. It had deliberately suspended the Standing Orders, in order to undo legislation which it had approved of and sanctioned a very short time ago; and the mode in which it was proposed to undo that legislation was, in his opinion, of a most objectionable character. The Bill simply provided that these ventilators should be closed, and that the expense of closing them should be borne by the public. Not only was the expense of closing them to fall upon the public, but the original expense of opening them was also to fall upon the public. It was estimated that the expense of opening, and the expense of closing them, would reach altogether the sum of £40,000; and it was proposed by these Bills to throw this burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The ratepayers of London had, therefore, every reason for opposing this Bill; and it was desirable that persons who professed to represent the ratepayers, other than the Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board of Works, should be able to appear before the Committee, and state their objections to this proposal to throw upon them a charge of £40,000. Unless his Motion were agreed to, the ratepayers would have no means whatever of opposing this exorbitant and improper charge upon them. But if the Bill were referred to a Hybrid Committee, the ratepayers could come before that Committee, and give evidence to show what their opinions were; whereas, before a Private Bill Committee, they would be obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. He thought it would be a most objectionable course if the public were not to be represented in the same way as they were upon occasions when the general public interests were at stake. It was frequently the case that the Board of Trade represented the public, and the Board of Trade insisted on Hybrid Committees, in order that the public interests might be properly protected. On this occasion the Board of Trade had neglected its duty. It ought to have come forward in the interests of the public; but it had failed to do so, and the only thing he could do was to move that these Bills be referred to a Hybrid Committee. He had spoken of the burden of £40,000 which it was proposed to throw improperly upon the public. There was, however, another burden-namely, that of suffocation, which was to be thrown upon the travellers by the Railway; and yet they were to have no power to appear before the Committee of their own Motion, but were to be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers. He said nothing about the Railway Company. He desired to leave the Railway Company to fight its own battle. He had nothing to do with them, and he was speaking solely in the interests of the public, upon whom it was proposed to inflict the burden of £40,000, and in the interests of the travellers by the Railway, whom it was proposed by the Bill deliberately to suffocate. He intended to propose, in the case of both of these Bills, that a Hybrid Committee should be appointed, instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."-(Mr. Anderson.) MR. LABOUCHERE said, his hon. Friend had made an extremely good speech, no doubt; but it was a speech which ought to have been made upon the second reading of the Bill. The object of his hon. Friend was to secure an independent representation of the public before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that if they were to have four Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection, the Metropolitan Board of Works would represent the ratepayers before that Committee. He was certainly surprised to hear from his hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis. So far as he knew, the Board of Works was the only representative the ratepayers of the Metropolis had. Not only would the Metropolitan Board of Works be heard, but the Commissioners of Sewers would also represent the interests of the public; and, on the other side, the Railway Com fidence. It was because he believed that all the questions at stake would be much more fairly discussed, and that much less waste of time and expense would be involved by referring the Bill to an ordinary rather than to a Hybrid Committee, that he opposed the Motion. pany would naturally seek to oppose the | Anderson) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Bill, and would call all witnesses who Committee. The question raised was would be able to speak on their behalf. not whether the course taken by the Of course, they would call a reasonable Railway Company was right or not. In number of travellers on the Under- point of fact, the Company had taken ground Railway in support of their case, powers under a previous Bill, and they who would be able to say whether or had misused them. His objection to the not the contention of his hon. Friend, Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow that they were likely to be suffocated by was simply that, as a rule, a Hybrid the passing of the Bill, had any founda- Committee represented a particular intion. There was no reason for saying terest; whereas it was essential, in the that other evidence would not be sub- inquiry they were about to enter into, to mitted to a Committee appointed by the consider the question in a merely judiCommittee of Selection; whereas, if the cial spirit. The Metropolitan Board of proposal of his hon. Friend were agreed Works and the Corporation of London to, there would be a Committee of seven, were not represented upon the Comthree of whom would be appointed by mittee, but were perfectly content to the Committee of Selection and four by submit the matter to an ordinary Comthe House, who would consist, he pre-mittee, in which they had complete consumed, of two advocates on one side and two on the other. That was a fair presumption, and it was what was done when a Committee was appointed in this manner. After the Railway Company had given evidence, and after evidence had been heard on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers, if the Com- MR. CROPPER said, he rose to supmittee was a hybrid one, any gentle- port the Motion of his hon. Friend the man who had a fad about this Railway Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). would be able to come forward and give The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. evidence. Now, he was a ratepayer of Labouchere) said the speech of his hon. the Metropolis himself, and he objected Friend ought to have been made on to spend the public money in feeing the second reading. He (Mr. Cropper) counsel in order to examine all these thought that speeches to a similar effect amateur witnesses. Even when the case had been made on the second reading. was closed they would have to discuss At any rate, he had said all he could on and settle the matter between two advo- the second reading against the proposal cates on the one side and two on the to close the ventilators. He thought other. There was, therefore, no reason, it was an important point now that he thought, for departing from the usual they should select as good a Committee course of procedure in these matters. as possible. The question was settled, And he would beg to move that all the and therefore was not worth arguing, words of the Amendment after "That whether these ventilators should be rethe Bill be referred to a " be struck out, tained or not. But it was important and "" a Committee of Four Members " that some good system should be probe substituted. posed and adopted. He thought, if that MR. SPEAKER pointed out that an question were well put before the ComAmendment of that nature was not neces-mittee, and if the Committee were as sary. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he would confine himself, therefore, to opposing the Motion, as he understood the same object would be gained by negativing it. BARON HENRY DE WORMS said, he had not much to say in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he felt bound to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mr. Laboucher e large as possible, some good result might be brought about in the interests of the millions of people who travelled underground, and whose welfare ought to be considered in the question. His opinion was that the ventilators themselves were an improvement. He did not think they were any eyesore to speak of; and he thought that all the weight which could be given to the Committee should be given to it. He supported the Motion, |