they must kill a certain number of passengers. It was idle to tell the House of the large penalties they incurred as a consequence of accidents acting as a deterrent to them in this course of proceed. ing; for the accidents and the compensation were both on the increase. In this particular case, it was obviously a question of money. It had been admitted that if we had the means of locomotion for the guard to allow him to circulate from one end of the train to the other, the cause of complaint would be removed. The guard could inquire into any emergency or cause of alarm without stopping the train until he had ascertained what it was. If carriages were properly constructed, arrangements might, with the sacrifice of a small amount of space, be made to enable the guard to pass with safety from one carriage to another; and it was, therefore, clear that this was а mere question of expense. Whether his hon. Friend should divide or not, he trusted that the time was not far distant when by the voice of public indignation the House would be told in terms which it could not misunderstand that it should not any longer be permitted to sanction a system of traffic under which the blood and bones of passengers were sacrificed to save the pockets of railway companies. who were being killed, burnt, or maimed, he could not help thinking that the Government had been very apathetic on this subject. He would repeat what he had formerly said, that so long as the Government exhibited the same want of energy which had hitherto characterized them, so long must they be held responsible for the continuance of these accidents whenever they occurred. The Government admitted the existence of the evil, but contented itself with forwarding circulars to the railway companies, requesting their attention to the subject. The result of these energetic measures was, that the railway companies were just beginning to make a few experiments as to the best mode of affording means of communication between the passengers and the guards. The hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson) complained that no suggestion had been made as to how this communication was to be effected. He should like to know whether if some definite and effectual measure had been proposed by Government, they would not have had the railway directors of all the companies crying out that the Government were interfering in railway management, and endeavouring to deal with things which they did not understand. It appeared that the Committee appointed by MR. DILLWYN said, that he consithe railway authorities had been sitting dered the attacks made upon the Governfor many months, that they had exa- ment and the railway companies unjust. mined 196 schemes, and that they had They had taken the matter into their not been able to come to a conclusion consideration, and had formed a plan which upon any one of them. He considered they believed would accomplish good, and that the course they had pursued was they ought at least to have the credit of trifling with the House. The fact that doing what they could until the plan they the Committee appointed by the Clearing proposed had been tried. At present it House had considered 196 schemes, and was impossible for the guard to communihad prepared a Report, was no compensa- cate with passengers when the train was tion to the public for the risk which they proceeding at anything like average speed, ran of being burnt, maimed, or murdered on account of the extreme rapidity of the on railways. There were two difficulties, motion, which would render loss of life to and two only, in the way of the establish- the guard imminent were he to make any ment of such a communication as was such attempt. He was sure that the comrecommended by the Motion before the pany of which he was a director would most House. One was that railway directors readily adopt any invention which experiinvariably refused to act upon any sugges-ence should prove to be a successful one. tions which came from out of doors, and If the plan under consideration was found the other was that they would not spend to answer he had no doubt it would be a shilling they could possibly avoid, even carried out by the railway companies with to prevent the occurrence of accidents. a liberal spirit. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that if the railway companies were to adopt a certain mode of proceeding they would kill a certain number of railway servants, and the effect of the argument was that, in order to avoid killing railway servants, MR. PEASE said, it had been his lot to fill the position of a railway director for a great number of years, and he must utterly disclaim the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) as to this question being a matter of money. He could hardly suppose that the House would endorse the sentiment, that the railway boards, constituted as they were of men of business, men prominent in works of benevolence, thought nothing about the comfort of passengers; nothing but about the remunerativeness of their undertakings. That they said, "Slaughter whomsoever you will, and spend no money to redress an evil which renders the lives of the public insecure." The railway companies studied nothing more seriously than the comfort of their passengers, and the instructions given to the gentlemen appointed to attend the conference on the subject were to adopt the best plan, without reference to money, because they felt that they were gentlemen to whose keeping was intrusted the most precious lives. It was alike ungenerous and unjust to taunt them with some thing worse than remissness-namely, indifference to human life, when they did all they could not only to secure safety but comfort to passengers. He thought that such extravagant charges as those brought by the hon. Member for Norfolk would only recoil on the heads of those who brought them. SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had, perhaps, never heard the proverb, "Companies have no souls." They all knew that the individuals with whom they dined, and whom they met in society, were quite different persons when they became associated in corporation. They were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) was pledged that the railway companies, within a reasonable time after the result of the experiment, would find a means of communication between the drivers of engines and passengers, through the guard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the means of communication, which it was hoped would be discovered by the Railways Committee, was to be applied only to express and fast trains, which were to be brought up at the next signal station after receiving the intimation to stop. But suppose the recurrence of such an accident as that which had recently occurred between Reading and London, would the right hon. Gentleman say that the train was to continue in progress to the next station? However, after what had taken place, as the House appeared to consist mainly of railway directors, and he had therefore little chance of carrying it, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he had Mr. Pease given no pledge of anything. What he had stated was, that the railway companies, in reply to the Government circular, had recognized the desirableness of having a com munication between passengers and guards, to be exercised under certain limits, and promised that if a practical scheme were discovered it should be generally adopted. SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman name a time when the scheme will be adopted? MR. MILNER GIBSON: If the hon. Gentleman will move for the papers he can have them. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MINES. MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. MR. AYRTON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act, for the regulation and inspection of Mines, and the allegations of the petitions presented to the House upon the subject from the Miners of Great Britain. He said, that as there was no opposition to the Motion it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations. It had been said that the Committee had been moved for rather late. That, however, was not his fault or that of the petitioners, and it would be the duty of the Committee to proceed as rapidly as possible to make up for time which had been lost. He concluded by presenting petitions from 10,000 miners, in addition to those already presented. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the notice had been worded so as to be vague in its terms; he had, therefore, suggested the terms which the hon. Member had now adopted. A great many petitions had been presented from miners, complaining of what they conceived to be some defects in the administration of the Act for the Regula tion and Inspection of Mines. As that Act had been in operation for some years, it was a fit subject for inquiry, though he doubted whether a Committee could now conclude its labours in time to make a Report during the present Session. If the hon. Member thought it right to take the Committee under these circumstances, there would be no objection. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he thought a Royal Commission, which would have been able to visit localities and look personally into the matter, would have afforded a more effectual means of inquiry that a Select Committee. At the same time, he thought it would be very dangerous for the House to resist the demand made by so many persons engaged in the trade, and if no better result should arise from the inquiry than a proof that the claims of these persons were not overlooked, the time occupied in the investigation would not have been lost. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he was not aware that a Royal Commission had been asked for. He had understood that a Committee was what it was wished to obtain. MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he wanted to know whether inquiry were to be limited to coal mines, or to extend to different metalliferous mines, such as those in Cornwall? MR. AYRTON said, the Act mentioned only referred to coal and iron stone mines, and the petitions were limited in the same way. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, it was to be regretted that there was so little time left for going into the question. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson) that a Royal Commission would have afforded a more satisfactory means of inquiry than a Select Committee. The case made out by the working miners was so strong, that it was impossible for the House to resist the inquiry. He hoped the Committee would sufficiently appreciate the strong feeling that existed on the part of these men, to determine that something should be done. It was very desirable that they should, if possible, make their Report this Session; but if that could not be done, they might recommend the Government to appoint a Royal Commission. CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL. [BILL 35.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. NEWDEGATE*: Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Douglas) has given notice of his intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill, as he had done on two former occasions. The object of those Bills was the same as that for which I now ask the consideration of the House. I have referred to the records of the speeches of the hon. Baronet on these Bills, and I must say that, although they have one meritthat they were not long-their length is out of all proportion to the matter which they contain. I know not, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet wishes to imply, by this renewal of opposition, merely that he dislikes the consideration of the subject contemplated by this Bill; perhaps that is the reason why his opposition is very perseVering. I remember that the hon. Baronet was once a Tory; but he now seems to have changed his party, and to have joined the Ultra-Liberal section of the House; but I am not aware of any great change in his opinions. The hon. Baronet, however, serves the purpose of a political weathercock, and shows whence the opposition to this Bill emanates. Nothing appears to be more conspicuous than the excessive liberality of the Ultra-Liberals on some points, and their excessive illiberality upon others. It was only the other day that hon. Gentlemen of that party were anxiously supporting a Bill which would have lowered the franchise to £6 in justly characterized as the father of his country, that their Constitution recognizes no form of Christianity. Washington desired to establish among the States those principles of charity, those peaceful principles of mutual goodwill which have, thank God, through the influence of the Church of England, ever prevailed in this country as the basis of our Constitution, which exemplifies the feelings which prevail among the great body of the people of this country. There is nothing, Sir, in history more remarkable than an incident, which has been much overlooked-than a circumstance which occurred during the formation of the Constitution of the United States. Washington was most anxious to establish the Protestant form of religion. He was most anxious upon this subject, that our former colonists should copy from the mother country the wise provision by which, under the form of an established religion, the ministration of a pure Christianity and the opportunities for a true worship should be afforded to every citizen. The proposal was, however, opposed by Jefferson, the disciple of Voltaire, at the instance of Carroll-a Roman Catholic-whose brother was a Jesuit, and who afterwards, by a process then unusual in his Order, became Bishop of Baltimore. And, Sir, when we see the condition of the United States-when we witness the bitter feelings which have generated the war-when we see the convulsions which these States are undergoing-when we remember that their President has been murdered-when we see that the life of the Prime Minister has been attempted-may we not regard with distrust the objects of those who would remove the characteristic of the Constitution of the country which is embodied in the union of the Protestant Church of this country with the State, in order to induce us to adopt the principle of the Constitution of the United States, which is now illustrated by so dark and so lamentable a page in the history of the world. all boroughs, and which would, in fact, | United States, which has this great mishave reduced the franchise upon which a fortune, foreseen by Washington, who was clear majority of this House are returned to something very like household suffrage. And now these same hon. Gentlemen appear as my opponents, when I come forward-after having for many years listened to their complaints aginst the present system of church rates, chiefly founded on the conscientious objections which the personal liability to the church rate excites amongst their constituents. I seek to remove that personal liability of which their constituents complain; to give an exemption from personal liability from the cost of maintaining the fabric and the services of the Church to the whole class of occupiers, yet these Gentlemen now come down to the House and threaten me with the most determined opposition. During the long contests, Sir, in this House relating to church rates, which have extended over a period of thirty years, the only element which rendered the opposition respectable was the fact, that it pretended or purported to be founded upon the conscientious objections of certain Dissenters to the payment of church rates-forced payment towards the maintenance of a Church to which they object. There is no other respectable ground for this opposition, unless we are to understand that the desire to uproot the Church Establishment itself ought to command the respect of the House. I am inclined to think, from the opposition now threatened to this Bill, that the opposition to church rates has become one phase of a dangerous agitation seeking the dis-establishment of the Church-aiming at the separation of the Church from the State. The proposals of this Bill fully meet the conscientious objections which are entertained; but it is directed absolutely against the attempt to despoil the parishioners of this country of their right to a portion of the real value of the property within their parishes used for the purpose of maintain ing the fabric and the services of their churches, which they have possessed from time immemorial. A proposal for the settlement of this question ought to have this effect-it ought to separate those who are actuated by a desire to satisfy conscientious scruples from those who desire to use the anti-Church agitation for the purpose of uprooting the Establishment-for the purpose of changing the Constitution of this country-for the purpose of assimilating it to the Constitution of the Mr. Newdegate Let me now, Sir, advert to the immediate object of this Bill. The principle of the Bill is this-that this House shall sanction the substitution of a charge of twopence in the pound upon real property in this country, in lieu of church rates, as they have hitherto been levied; that this provision shall, in the first instance, extend to no property but that which has been assessed to church rates within the last seven years, and to those parishes only the inhabitants of which have not manifested their opposition to church rates by three successive rejections of church rates upon a poll. Therefore, what I ask the House to do is this-to give the inhabitants of those parishes who have manifested their desire for the supply from real property which church rates have up to the present time afforded them, the means which twopence in the pound on real property will yield for purposes of church rate-that is, for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the Church. During the last Session, Sir, after I had made this same proposal to the House, in a Bill very similar to the present-although the present Bill has been, as I think, greatly simplified and improved-the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone rose in his place, and told me that I was guilty of proposing to the House a mere political juggle-a mere financial juggle. He said that I proposed that the owner, not the occupier, should pay this twopence in the pound-that, so far as this amount (the average of the church rate throughout England) was concerned, the change which I proposed would make no difference, for that the owner would immediately charge upon the occupier an amount equivalent to the charge imposed upon him. Now, Sir, that appears to me to be a very specious objection; but the noble Lord forgot this, that the operation which I proposed is illustrated by the property and income tax; and if he is right, and it makes no difference whether the owner or Occupier is liable to the charge, the difference between Schedule A of the property tax and Schedule B of income tax has no effect upon the incidence of taxation; for it is clear that, if the argument of the noble Lord against my proposal is good, and that the change I propose will not affect the positions of the owner of property and the occupier of property in this respect, it is perfectly clear that the whole amount levied under Schedule B of income tax-that is to say, the whole amount paid by the occupiers of land-constitutes a charge upon landed property, as direct as is the charge under Schedule A, which is called the owners' tax; the distinction between these two schedules is as much a juggle as the scheme I propose. Now, Sir, I refer to this point because it is important. I never yet was guilty, I hope, of proposing a Parliamentary or financial fallacy to the House, and my proposal is this-to give an exemption from personal liability to any payment for the purposes of church rate to the whole of the occupying body. In order to effect that object, I adopt the principle of the property and income tax, which allows the occupier to deduct the charge under Schedule A from his rent. I propose that the charge which I would substitute for church rates shall be levied on the same principle as the tax is levied under Schedule A of the income tax, abandoning the principle of Schedule B in the income tax, which is similar in its incidence to the church rate as now levied in parishes, with this difference only, that the one being a local tax and the other a general tax, the church rate is always levied by the churchwardens and overseers of parishes, whereas, under Schedule B, the tax is levied by the Commissioners of Income Tax appointed by the Government. Sir, I hope the House will excuse me for having endeavoured to meet this objection. I will now, Sir, proceed to deal with another class of objections. After a long contest in this House-after having been in a minority, the defenders of church rates and of the Church, now that this House has decided by a majority of ten that church rates shall not be abolished without compensation being given, seem to think it quite needless to take any notice of the former opposition of the former majorities of the House. They would, I suppose, have it believed that the opposition was merely fictitious, a factious movement on the part of the Liberal party in this House. It appears, Sir, to me that they totally forget that, in the year 1862, this House and a very full House-passed an important Resolution. The House, perhaps, will allow me to refer to the terms of that Resolution. In a House of 559 Members, the House came to a Resolution by a majority of seventeen, to the effect "That it would be unjust and inexpedient that church rates should be abolished until some substitute for them has been supplied." It is upon that Resolution that I found my proposal. The House, in 1862, was evidently dissatisfied with the state of the law respecting church rates, and after having decided by former majorities to sweep away church rates altogether, on mature consideration, came to the decision |