sion. Its character was very compre- | Acts, and added new obligations with hensive, as it sought to provide for the regard to sulphuric and other acids whole Kingdom, wherever a noxious upon the manufacturers, in order that as trade was carried on, or noxious gas little as possible might be emitted during emanations injurious to the health of the process of manufacturing. The the public were produced, such a re- second part was devoted to the trades medy as would be readily applicable that were placed for the first time under without unduly interfering with the these obligations. The third part cataindustry of the country. It was in- logued all the remaining trades that tended by the Bill to raise from the were to come under inspection, and trades and manufacturers themselves a that were to be liable to be called upon comparatively small sum of money to adopt such preventive methods as which, with the amount already pro- were from time to time shown to be apvided by Parliament, would be suffi- plicable. In this way, the inspection cient to supply an adequate machinery hitherto confined to alkali works would for giving effect to its object. In con- be extended for the benefit of the whole nection with the history of previous community. Existing works would be legislation with regard to the subject, allowed a certain time for re-registration, he would remind the House that the without which no new works would be original Alkali Act, passed in 1863, was allowed. Licence fees would have to be designed to cure the mischief done to paid and would reduce the cost of invegetation from the evolution of muriatic spection, and a sanitary district, or a acid gas. It limited to a great extent combination of two or more districts, the mischief done by isolated works; but might apply for the services of an Inthe progress of trade had led to the spector, who would be paid by the Goestablishment of a great aggregation of vernment, the district to guarantee a these manufactories in many districts, certain proportion of the salary. Comespecially on the Tyne and Mersey, and plaint had been made of the supposed the result was that vegetation was leniency of the Alkali Inspectors in inentirely destroyed in those neighbour-stituting proceedings, but he doubted hoods. Accordingly, when he entered upon his present office, applications were made to him by gentlemen connected with the localities thus affected for an amendment and extension of the Act. That was affected by the Act of 1874, which required the owners of those factories so to conduct their operations as to allow only an almost imperceptible amount of muriatic acid gas to escape from the chimneys of their works at one time. Complaints, however, were still made that vegetation continued to wither from the effect of these gases, and the Government consented in 1875-6 to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Act and report on the whole subject of the injury to the public done by noxious vapours. Concurrently SIR HENRY JAMES moved the adwith the appointment of the Royal Comi-journment of the debate, and his reamission an Inspector of the Local Government Board was engaged to examine factories and ascertain what means were available to diminish the mischief the caused by the evolution of gases; and he recommended that provisions analogous to those in the Alkali Acts should be applied to several trades. The first part of the Bill consolidated and reenacted the main provision of the Alkali If the law whether there was any ground for such Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Sclater-Booth). sons for doing so he felt sure the House would accept. This was a very important Bill, in which many persons were strongly interested who were absent, and it seriously affected certain manufacturers in, for instance, the 29th clause. Therefore, when the Bill was discussed it ought to be discussed fully. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was asked on Thursday when he would take the Bill, to give the opinion of a fanatic. But he would quote the opinion of Sir Henry Thompson in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury-a letter from a man who had the care of our bodies to a man who had the care of our souls. Sir Henry Thompson said that the habitual use of fermented liquors, far short of what was necessary to produce drunkenness, and such as was quite common in all ranks of society, injured the body and diminished the mental powers to an extent which few people were aware of; and he believed there was no single habit in this country which so much tended to deteriorate the qualities of the race, and so much disqualified them for that endurance which was required in that struggle in which the prizes must fall to the best and the strongest. Yet they were asked, in the face of that dreadful state of things, to relieve the manufacturers of these liquors from taxation. If that was the only remedy which the right hon. Gentleman had to propose for the misery and destitution of the country, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thanked God he was not a statesman, and was never likely to be one. There was no greater fallacy than to suppose, if you dosed people with weak alcohol, they would grow up strong. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he brought in a Bill for supplying people with cheap wine, saying he did it for the purpose of promoting temperance in this country, and that if they drank this sour, nasty stuff, they would give up stronger liquors. There never was a greater delusion. The result had been "That those then drank who never drank before, And those who always drank then drank the more." He, therefore, hoped the House would get rid of the superstitious idea that they would wean people from drinking one form of alcohol by encouraging them to drink another. We tried the same thing before in the case of cheap beer, but everyone knew there was never a greater evil, and those who supported the measure in a short time saw the greatness of their delusion. Dr. Richardson said it was perfectly horrible that so much Revenue should be raised by the degradation of the nation. But, as it was the system to raise about one-third Sir Wilfrid Lawson of our Revenue by the sale and consumption of strong drink, let us have equality, and let not the man who drank one sort of liquor pay less than the man who drank another. He fully admitted the convincing force of the figures with which the future Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Home Rule Party (Mr. Mitchell-Henry) had sustained the proposal which he had just made to them to tax beer; and also the reasonableness of the complaint which the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had more than once urged, as to the way in which spirits were taxed as compared with beer, and that alcohol in Scotch whisky was taxed much higher than alcohol in English beer. Let the English sot and the tippling Scot pay exactly the same. He would not, however, level down, but level up, and the simplest way would be to increase the malt duty; but as that proposal threatened to drive some hon. Gentlemen crazy, they might impose a duty on beer. Beer was taxed one-fifth of its price, or 20 per cent; spirits were taxed four-fifths of their price, or 80 per cent. That was not fair. There was no need for a Committee, the matter had been very well discussed, and might be very properly left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped, therefore, every hon. Gentleman of common sense in the House would, on this occasion, vote against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, and give his hearty support to Her Majesty's Government. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 115; Noes 53: Majority 62.-(Div. List, No. 99.) Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Committee deferred till Monday next. NOXIOUS GASES BILL.-[BILL 123.] (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Viscount Sandon, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Salt.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was based on the recommendations of a Royal Commis sion. Its character was very compre- | Acts, and added new obligations with hensive, as it sought to provide for the regard to sulphuric and other acids whole Kingdom, wherever a noxious upon the manufacturers, in order that as trade was carried on, or noxious gas little as possible might be emitted during emanations injurious to the health of the process of manufacturing. The the public were produced, such a re- second part was devoted to the trades medy as would be readily applicable that were placed for the first time under without unduly interfering with the these obligations. The third part cataindustry of the country. It was in- logued all the remaining trades that tended by the Bill to raise from the were to come under inspection, and trades and manufacturers themselves a that were to be liable to be called upon comparatively small sum of money to adopt such preventive methods as which, with the amount already pro- were from time to time shown to be apvided by Parliament, would be suffi- plicable. In this way, the inspection cient to supply an adequate machinery hitherto confined to alkali works would for giving effect to its object. In con- be extended for the benefit of the whole nection with the history of previous community. Existing works would be legislation with regard to the subject, allowed a certain time for re-registration, he would remind the House that the without which no new works would be original Alkali Act, passed in 1863, was allowed. Licence fees would have to be designed to cure the mischief done to paid and would reduce the cost of invegetation from the evolution of muriatic spection, and a sanitary district, or a acid gas. It limited to a great extent combination of two or more districts, the mischief done by isolated works; but might apply for the services of an Inthe progress of trade had led to the spector, who would be paid by the Goestablishment of a great aggregation of vernment, the district to guarantee a these manufactories in many districts, certain proportion of the salary. Comespecially on the Tyne and Mersey, and plaint had been made of the supposed the result was that vegetation was leniency of the Alkali Inspectors in inentirely destroyed in those neighbour-stituting proceedings, but he doubted hoods. Accordingly, when he entered upon his present office, applications were made to him by gentlemen connected with the localities thus affected for an amendment and extension of the Act. That was affected by the Act of 1874, which required the owners of those factories so to conduct their operations as to allow only an almost imperceptible amount of muriatic acid gas to escape from the chimneys of their works at one time. Complaints, however, were still made that vegetation continued to wither from the effect of these gases, and the Go-reading of the Bill. vernment consented in 1875-6 to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Act and report on the whole subject of the injury to the public done by noxious vapours. Concurrently SIR HENRY JAMES moved the adwith the appointment of the Royal Com-journment of the debate, and his reamission an Inspector of the Local Go-sons for doing so he felt sure the House vernment Board was engaged to examine factories and ascertain what means were available to diminish the mischief the caused by the evolution of gases; and he recommended that provisions analogous to those in the Alkali Acts should be applied to several trades. The first part of the Bill consolidated and reenacted the main provision of the Alkali | whether there was any ground for such complaint. The efficiency of inspection was not to be tested by the number of proceedings against works, for much good was done indirectly and without resort to legal measures. If the law with regard to nuisances arising from noxious gases were made uniform throughout the United Kingdom, he was satisfied that manufacturers would readily adopt any regulations on the subject which might be laid down. In conclusion, he would move the second Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Sclater-Booth). would accept. This was a very important Bill, in which many persons were strongly interested who were absent, and it seriously affected certain manufacturers in, for instance, the 29th clause. Therefore, when the Bill was discussed it ought to be discussed fully. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was asked on Thursday when he would take the Bill, and he distinctly said he would take it | promoters had been singularly unjust in on Monday. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH begged to explain. The Bill stood for last evening. He was asked about it early in the day, and he said he was afraid from the opposition to it that it would be impossible to take it before Monday, but that he had not given up all hope of taking it that evening. SIR HENRY JAMES asked, whether the natural inference from those words was not that the Bill would not be taken this evening? He knew many Members, including his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who desired to speak on the Bill, had gone away, and if the second reading were pressed on, the only effect would be to create a feeling that a promise had been broken, and so to prevent its further progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Sir Henry James.) MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he could not resist the Motion, if it were pressed; but he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman was the only Member in the House who desired the adjournment. His answer was not reported, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was not present when the answer was given, he could not be prejudiced. MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON said, he was in the House at the time the answer was given; but, as he did not catch its purport, he spoke to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) afterwards, and certainly understood from him that he would bring on the measure that (Friday) night, if he could. He thought it would be very inconvenient to delay the Bill, and to waste the time of hon. Members who had come down to support the second reading. MR. LOWTHIAN BELL could not tell, of course, what took place between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the last speaker privately; but immediately after hearing the answer given on the previous evening, he went into the Lobby and told half-a-dozen gentlemen, manufacturers and others, that the Bill would not come on before Monday, and they consequently went away. As a whole, he liked the Bill, although its Sir Henry James certain clauses to the manufacturers. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, of course, where there was any misunderstanding as to an arrangement, it was far better to take an adjournment. Question put, and agreed to. Debate adjourned till Monday next. WORMWOOD SCRUBS REGULATION BILL-[BILL 96.] (Colonel Lindsay, Mr. Secretary Stanley, Lord Eustace Cecil.) Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th May], "That Mr. Shaw Lefevre be a Member of the Select Committee on the Wormwood Scrubs Regulation Bill." Question again proposed. Question put, and agreed to. Mr. GORDON, Colonel KINGSCOTE, and Colonel LOYD LINDSAY nominated other Members of the Committee. MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (Dr. Lush, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Joseph SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time." And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."-(Mr. Serjeant Simon.) word 'now' stand part of the QuesQuestion again proposed, "That the tion." Debate resumed. Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 92; Noes Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, resolve itself into the said Committee."-(Colonel 15: Majority 77.-(Div. List, No. 100.) Stanley.) SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he had no intention of detaining the House, but it had always been the effort of the Opposition to keep the Government to an understanding as to when Morning Sittings should commence. The rule always had been that they should not commence regularly before the 10th or 12th of June, and for two years the first Morning Sitting was on the 19th of June. There had sometimes been exceptional Morning Sittings, one in March and one in April, but these were always regarded as purely exceptional. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, he saw, shook his head; but on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) went very carefully into the figures, and prepared a tabulated statement which was reported in Hansard. The Government, he thought, would hardly deny that they were taking more Morning Sittings, and taking them oftener, than ever was the case before. That day made the third, another was fixed for Tuesday, and he was certain that was the earliest period at which they had ever got into them regularly. Previously, any Morning Sittings before June were always defended on the ground that they were exceptional. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a Morning Sitting some weeks ago, he told them it was exceptional; but he only missed one Tuesday, and they had had them ever since. If Government insisted, of course, it was useless to object; but he certainly should divide the House by way of protest. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he also wished formally to enter his protest against the idea that the |